PDA

View Full Version : Valley Line LRT | Downtown to Millwoods | Under Construction



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Edmcowboy11
10-09-2007, 12:27 AM
Currently LRT is being built to Century Park, there has been more and more talk about LRT north to NAIT, and there are many that would like to see LRT going West to WEM. What I would like to toss into the ring is what about LRT to Millwoods.

Millwoods and it's surrounding communities are getting bigger and bigger. Housing has long jumped over AHD and gone past Ellerslie Road, maybe eventually trying to push right out to Beaumont and Nisku. At the same time housing and devellopment has been pushing closer and closer to highway 14 to soon meet up with Sherwood Park. The commercial and industrial area between 91st and 103st is filling up quick. What would be wrong with having an LRT line going into millwoods. Could a line be branched off at Century Park? Would it be better to come directly from the downtown on a new bridge accross the river and where would it go? Could a new massive park and ride facility be built at a LRT terminal to better accomodate all the people from Millwoods and surrounding SE communities that clog up 50st, 75st, 91st every morning heading downtown and other destinations north?

Just like the west end, millwoods has been waiting for LRT for a long long time. Rather than a BRT line running down 50th or 75th why not an LRT line. I think the amount of ETS busses travelling out of millwoods warrents looking at the SE side of the city for a new or an extension line for LRT.

m0nkyman
10-09-2007, 12:33 AM
A line from WEM through downtown, and heading south-east to Millwoods would be the ideal.... a nice match to the existing north east to south line

Medwards
10-09-2007, 10:28 AM
First thought -

What if we ran the SLRT to AHD/TUC, then ran it east to 66st or 50 st.
We could have stations near each major road such as 91st, 66st, 50st and eventually 34st, 17st.... Sherwood park part 3... (lol)

Wouldn't that be much cheaper and faster to build then 23ave/28ave alignment?

IKAN104
10-09-2007, 12:29 PM
Cheaper and faster should not necessarily be the main consideration. We've got to look at the system that we want to end up with, not simply "what can we build quickly?"

I would much rather see a new line come south from downtown through the bonnie doon area into Millwoods and have that line (as well as the current line) intersected by an east west line.

grish
10-09-2007, 01:18 PM
yes, we should be careful about wishing for a single line snaking through the whole city. there should be a few lines eventually built to connect downtown with every part of the city.

Sonic Death Monkey
10-09-2007, 01:59 PM
I'm iffy about the idea of extending the sLRT to Millwoods or along the Henday with a bunch of park & rides clogging it up. A Millwoods extension would be acceptable if it was part of a circular route that went from sLRT at Century Park to Millwoods Town Centre then up to Bonnie Doon and back downtown.

moahunter
10-09-2007, 04:23 PM
I'm iffy about the idea of extending the sLRT to Millwoods or along the Henday with a bunch of park & rides clogging it up. A Millwoods extension would be acceptable if it was part of a circular route that went from sLRT at Century Park to Millwoods Town Centre then up to Bonnie Doon and back downtown.

I like the idea of a circular route, this has great potential to reduce pressure on our bridges, picking up commuters through the South Side. In an ideal world, we could keep expanding the Southern route while at the same time starting another LRT expansion elsewhere in the city at the same time.

IKAN104
10-09-2007, 04:56 PM
How would you extend a circular route as the city expands outward?

moahunter
10-09-2007, 05:07 PM
How would you extend a circular route as the city expands outward?

Why do we want the city to expand outwards on the South Side? Isn't this already causing a mess for people (making roads busier), and resulting in massive infrastructure costs (like the interchange's on Gateway)?

Medwards
10-09-2007, 05:09 PM
How would you extend a circular route as the city expands outward?

Why do we want the city to expand outwards on the South Side? Isn't this already causing a mess for people (making roads busier), and resulting in massive infrastructure costs (like the interchange's on Gateway)?
inevitably, the city will expand. Not much we can do to stop it. Might as well have a system that will be easy to grow. Its funny, the same people that don't want the city to grow further outwards are that same ones the oppose intensification in their neighbourhoods.

moahunter
10-09-2007, 05:13 PM
How would you extend a circular route as the city expands outward?

Why do we want the city to expand outwards on the South Side? Isn't this already causing a mess for people (making roads busier), and resulting in massive infrastructure costs (like the interchange's on Gateway)?
inevitably, the city will expand. Not much we can do to stop it. Might as well have a system that will be easy to grow. Its funny, the same people that don't want the city to grow further outwards are the same one the oppose intensification in their neighbourhoods.

It is a shame if our ring road becomes a suburban road. What will we build then, a double ring road? South sprawl needs to stop soon, it is just too costly a location to develop, we should have learned that by now.

Fortunatley I live in a neighborhood that supports intensification - that has supported developers who work with, and listen to, the community. There are densification projects already proceeding, and a pilot project to guide densification has been widely attended and supported. There is only really one project that is struggling, and that is because the developer to date, has chosen not to work with, or listen to, community league densification proposals for the site.

Medwards
10-09-2007, 05:22 PM
I dont want to derail this thread - PM me some names of these projects in your neighbourhood you are referring to. I'm interesting in various ways for various reasons.

moahunter
10-09-2007, 05:26 PM
I dont want to derail this thread - PM me some names of these projects in your neighbourhood you are referring to. I'm interesting in various ways for various reasons.

You can do your own research, a quick drive through Grovenor / Glenora should suffice. Just drive up SP road and look around. There will be more projects though. Agreed about the thread derailing, but you challenged my view on an inacurate claim that I do not support densification, which is false. I would love SP road (and other boulevards in the city) to be filled with town houses and low rise condo's, which IMO neighborhood planning will acheive much faster than ad-hoc DC2's.

Back to the LRT, I would like it to service and support existing neighborhoods first, like Millwoods - this would actually reduce some of the commuter traffic issues we have. A circle route may be a way to acheive this? I guess the other option discussed earlier in the thread is connecting to the NAIT line or a West Ed. line.

One alternative I do not like is to prioritise driving the LRT to the outskirts of the city. This might just encourage even more development on the edge. While this could benefit new neighborhoods, it seems unfair to me that neighborhoods that have been paying taxes for a long time and were originally promissed LRT (like Millwoods) continue to get overlooked.

Jasper
10-09-2007, 11:35 PM
I think the line from Century Park to MWTC would work. It would be the same line, or a line that ties into the 111 street line (if the 11 st line cont south). However, i think it would be successful if it was an express train from MWTC stopping at University and downtown - so bypassing CP, SG, SC and 76 ave.

IKAN104
11-09-2007, 09:30 AM
I agree that existing neighbourhoods should get LRT before the newly built subdivisions and I think city hall agrees on that too. That is why the NAIT / Northgate line is the next priority.

I don't believe however that Millwoods will see LRT until after Northgate and West Ed. And I think many Millwooders realize that too and that is why they are proposing a quick and easy extension from CP. But building a line from Millwoods to CP is not the right way to go.

If the most common destination for people starting in Millwoods is downtown, then the train should go north, directly to downtown. We have to build with the big picture in mind or we'll end up with a patchwork of lines that doesn't really make sense.

McBoo
11-09-2007, 12:42 PM
I tried to recommend this to the city years ago and got a thanks but no thanks in reply:

Run MW LRT across the High Level using the existing ROW to the old Strathcona CP station - then down what appears to be an old ROW near 68th avenue to the south end of Mill Creek Ravine, which is the north end of 91st Street. From there, take it down the middle of 91st Street all the way to Ellerslie Road (if you like).

People could connect to the University or further downtown at Grandin Station.

Not much ROW would have to be purchased, and it would follow (for the most part) existing medium or high density development.

Not as dense as city planners think I am, however..........

Medwards
11-09-2007, 04:30 PM
I dont understand why we need LRT every 20 blocks apart. We aren't that dense of the city (In reference to the "91st" alignment to millwoods) Look people - the city can barely find room on the budget for the current line construction - but yet we want to build another southern line 20 blocks away from the one that is being built down 111st? Makes no sense.

Drop a line from the current SLRT...

Now if we hadn't already started on this line - I would've preferred this alignment - but we have to work with what we have already...

ED1
11-09-2007, 09:05 PM
What about a branch route from Southgate to Millgate, and beyond? Already most of the buses within Millwoods travel between Millgate and Millwoods Town Centre...

The LRT could run parallel to 51 Avenue, serve the industrial parks there, and go further east to where that new power centre is at 17 Street and Whitemud... you could probably even have the LRT run in the median at Whitemud after 34th Street and have a station at 17 Street.

Bad idea or good idea?

IKAN104
11-09-2007, 10:50 PM
hmmm.... I don't know if running through an industrial park is the best way to attract riders. I would much rather see the LRT run east west along either 81st or 83rd Avenue.

highlander
17-12-2007, 01:37 PM
It was most recently raised in Councillor Bryan Anderson's ill-concieved idea that building a arena along the henday somwhere in the southeast, and then building LRT to it.

He stated that Millwoods was supposed to get the original LRT line.

Is there any substance behind this myth? Was a promise made? is it based only on conceptual maps from the 60s? why was millwoods supposed to be first? After all, the ancient LRT plans showed routes to jasper place and riverbend, too. or is it just an urban legend that refuses to die?

MylesC
17-12-2007, 02:50 PM
No, nothing in the original plans stated that the Millwoods line would be first.

This is completely bunk.

moahunter
17-12-2007, 03:10 PM
No, nothing in the original plans stated that the Millwoods line would be first. This is completely bunk.
I thought it was one of the original goals, if not a specific plan. Not first, but definitley an important priority, Millwoods is our largest neighborhood after all, and it is South of the river, which means LRT should help alleviate the downtown commute / bridge issues. A bit emarrassing they do not already have LRT.

Seems sad to me that Millwoods is dropping off the radar now though. While I don't want an Arena on the AH as an excuse to get it- Millwoods IMO needs LRT before proposed or possible new neighborhoods do. I fear Millwoods will not happen soon though, as there is probably not enough money or kudos to be made building new mega developments in Millwoods versus other locations. Such projects can provde the loby fuel necessary to win LRT access, which is my guess why some may be looking in desperation at an AH arena.

MylesC
17-12-2007, 03:21 PM
I was one of the original goals, yes, but Millwoods wasn't ever first in line in any long term LRT plan.

Whether it should have been or not is not under debate her. Highlander asked what the history of the plans were.

JayBee
17-12-2007, 05:52 PM
The original line was planned to go exactly where it is now going, however at the people of Millwoods have been frequently "reassured" that they were getting a line, as early as the original section opening in 1977. It might be embellishment on Anderson's part to imply there was a real planned commitment, but there is some real truth in it. Many people were given reason to believe it was coming.

But they do keep getting pushed to the end of the line, while having very legitimate commuting pressure and noticably heavy transit ridership. (Certainly higher than the Southwest, which is now getting the SLRT.)

NAIT and WEM in 10 years? St. Albert and YEG now seem on the "real radar" So Millwoods either gets lumped in on the end of SLRT, slowing their commutes and crowding Century Park's service, or they wait maybe 25 (more) years.

My heart goes out, but that's not where I'm going to move.

mark
17-12-2007, 07:15 PM
they should build a 23ave line from MWTC to rabbit hill road. then it could go north along terwillegar/whitemud and connect up at south campus.

bagould
17-12-2007, 07:19 PM
they should build a 23ave line from MWTC to rabbit hill road. then it could go north along terwillegar/whitemud and connect up at south campus.
...in the process going right by Century Park?

mark
17-12-2007, 07:21 PM
they should build a 23ave line from MWTC to rabbit hill road. then it could go north along terwillegar/whitemud and connect up at south campus.
...in the process going right by Century Park?
yup, but not without the ability for people to switch lines, obviously.

JayBee
17-12-2007, 08:58 PM
I think the 23ave from MWTC to Century Park has been proposed before, but this is the first I've seen anyone suggest it go into Riverbend. I'm not opposed to that, but does anybody in Riverbend even ride transit? Naturally more would if they had LRT direct DT via South Campus like you suggest, but there again, Millwoods is still getting ignored for direct service and the Middle Southeast is still going completely unserved, while the 8 is maybe the crushest route in the system.

Look, I hate to repeat this, but is this not a situation tailor made for megatrolleys? We could get the wires up in one year for basically no cost, relatively speaking, have decent service as soon as New Flyer (or whomever) can get us a full fleet, and by the time Millwoods' turn for LRT finally comes up in 2 decades or whatever, the fleet we buy for them would be ready for retirement anyway.

In the same timeframe we can even use them on the 23ave and Riverbend routes you suggest or into Sherwood Park (if they ever get a mayor who acknowledges that they're somewhat near Edmonton.)

Why prolong the wait ad infinitum? Why keep ignoring trolleys? I love LRT as much as anyone, I swear, but let's be realistic. It takes time and money, and the need is already there.

MylesC
17-12-2007, 10:49 PM
Strangely enough...I think the SE quadrant is the place where BRT, megatrolleys, whatever, is the best transit solution due to the constraints of punching an LRT ROW through extremely dense old neighbourhoods.

mick
18-12-2007, 01:21 AM
I don`t see SE the ROW as the problem, there are some pretty wide corridors with service routes on either side of the street, if you`re going the connors hill route. If you go with the highlevel route, ROW is even less of a concern. I see the problem as access to downtown either via the high level - currently reserved by the prov for HST - or any other route that then has to contend with the valley.

MylesC
18-12-2007, 10:16 AM
Think about punching an LRT line through areas like Stratheran or Bonnie Doon and...yeah, you'll have a problem.

madsad
19-12-2007, 08:11 AM
Think about punching an LRT line through areas like Stratheran or Bonnie Doon and...yeah, you'll have a problem.

Nope, it's no problem at all.

Take lanes away from auto traffic.

MylesC
19-12-2007, 11:21 AM
Take lanes away from auto traffic.

Riiiiiight......

mick
19-12-2007, 12:09 PM
Don't even have to do that. Just take away the service roads on either side of the road.

bagould
19-12-2007, 12:10 PM
It's equivalent to bus lanes. And anyway, who said it had to be an arterial?

moahunter
19-12-2007, 12:59 PM
It's equivalent to bus lanes. And anyway, who said it had to be an arterial?
I wouldn't have thought it was that difficult either, our city is not the densist, there is plenty of room to drive LRT anywhere, by closing the odd road, widing some, or similar. Its just a matter of making up minds and doing it.

Cleisthenis
19-12-2007, 01:01 PM
Not a bad idea Mark but unfortuantely not very realistic.

The only way SW LRT happens is after SE to downtown and West-East lines are finished in 15+ years and with conceptual TOD's on the University Farm, and SW zone (south of ellerslie) are in the development stages.

That would see a line running from South Campus through riverbend along terwillegar and then south west towards a Windermere TOD, and future TOD's in the direction of Devon.

madsad
19-12-2007, 08:13 PM
Take lanes away from auto traffic.

Riiiiiight......


No...seriously...

JayBee
20-12-2007, 08:30 PM
The original line was planned to go exactly where it is now going, however at the people of Millwoods have been frequently "reassured" that they were getting a line, as early as the original section opening in 1977. It might be embellishment on Anderson's part to imply there was a real planned commitment, but there is some real truth in it. Many people were given reason to believe it was coming.

I think I need to correct (or perhaps clarify) myself here. Actually the original "plan" involved using the High Level Bridge and possibly the CP corridor down between Millwoods and the Southwest, and possibly more. Ironically this was killed off by none other than CP (Calgary Pacific) themselves as they tried to extort unbelievable amounts of money for the scrap heap the High Level was at the time. Thence the decision was made to build the Dudley B. Menzies and go straight to the University itself (largely for the better in terms of service quality, but this in turn exhausted the rail budgets we had, and along with Klein's cutbacks halted our LRT's progress until recently.

Thus it is actually arguable that Millwoods was on the original plan, although the originally planned stations were expected on the doorstep of the Alberta Research Park, and for both better and worse the original "plan" never really became more than a sketch.

Anyway, back to Anderson's point again, yes Millwoods justifies better transit options, Millwoods could have expected that the LRT be about 1.5 km closer than it will soon be, but nothing in the world save stupidity could justify putting the arena out on the ring-road. Frankly it is worse than Paula Simon's latest ignorant whim of "Let's put all our resources into building something that has exactly the same problems as the old one!" If the powers that be are too wimpy to put it downtown, we are better off staying in Rexall until we get better powers that be.


-----

Re: ROWs through the middle Southeast: yeah, doable if we avoid arteries for most of it, but the budget for transforming them to rail? It'll be faster by decades and cheaper by billions to employ megatrolleys, either with or without ROWs.

Re: closing lanes for transit: doable physically, debatable politically, and in reality will depend how many people switch. Should be done around congested intersections regardless.

MylesC
20-12-2007, 11:19 PM
One of the only ways to put in an LRT route through inner city SE quadrant neighbourhoods would be to employ a design feature put into place in the 1960s.

All those houses that face onto a service road adjacent to an arterial...KABLOOIE.

There is simply no other way to get the room at the moment and the very idea of cutting out a few lanes from busy arterials that are only two lanes in either directions is proposterous.

JayBee
23-12-2007, 07:58 AM
Yeah, there's a lot of space there that way, and it's got a precedent in the current SLRT construction. The communities lobbied heavily against the "inner ring" during Bill Smith's time, but even at that time I think I recall most community leaders saying that what they really wanted was LRT, so maybe they would do it for transit.

Re: closing lanes: how about the alternating turning lane on 75th? Just ban left turns, and turn it into an alternating transit priority lane, and depending on the scale and frequency of the vehicles used on it (I don't want to say it...) it would be able to take a good enough chunk out of traffic that it would justify itself. Maybe throw in two grade separated intersections so people would still have a place to turn left too. (Or just let them use 50St. or 86St.)

Not in preference to widening, but doable?

(I realise this isn't where the current trolley diagram puts the route, but if it could expedite things, why not?)

bagould
23-12-2007, 08:50 AM
^Alternating transit lanes would be a little more difficult than a suicide/TWLTL. Curb running means you'd need to lane control the whole thing, which is a shame, because if you could somehow run them in the middle all you'd need to do is make sure the bus drivers knew not to use it against peak.

JayBee
23-12-2007, 05:07 PM
Does "curb running" describe lane separation or bus stops at the curb?

I was thinking no lane separation, and just an overhead signal that allows the centre lane for Northbound express buses in the A.M. peak, and then "alternating" to the Southbound buses for the P.M. peak. For a huge length it's running through industrial and wouldn't need to make stops at all, thus it wouldn't need to get to the curb. I think there'd be enough room going against the rush for buses to share two lanes with cars. (It's a little hard to tell from here though...)

The_Cat
14-03-2008, 11:08 PM
Mill Woods LRT proposal goes to council

Susan Ruttan, edmontonjournal.com
Published: 2:48 pm
EDMONTON - City council will be asked to spend $1.5 million to start planning yet another LRT line, this one from downtown to Mill Woods.

A report going to council's transportation and public works committee next week proposes hiring a consultant to start planning a Mill Woods light-rail transit line.

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=290c3231-c40c-4dd4-b69e-ec76d51f9711&k=67405

grish
14-03-2008, 11:19 PM
nice! hope it connects Bonnie Doon and/ or whyte ave on the way.

NINTman
14-03-2008, 11:22 PM
OMG I'm amazed at this LRT momentum.

Plan it out, and your argument for funding gets so much more credible.

The_Cat
14-03-2008, 11:32 PM
One thing that I hope for from Sherwood Park/Strathcona County. I hope they chip in on the leg of the LRT going to Sherwood Park. It will be money well spent.

The_Cat
14-03-2008, 11:58 PM
I agree, NINTman, if Edmonton has a vision for the LRT, there will be a greater chance of the LRT accomplishing its goal. I look forward to seeing what the LRT will look like in 2020.

moahunter
15-03-2008, 12:24 AM
I agree, NINTman, if Edmonton has a vision for the LRT, there will be a greater chance of the LRT accomplishing its goal. I look forward to seeing what the LRT will look like in 2020.
It is almost too good to be true. Now is the perfect time for our Council to get together and work together, not bicker over details (which our city transport team can iron out). Alberta has money, the Feds have money, and there is a real commitment by people to do something about the environment - I can think of no better way, than building a truely great transit system in our great city.

The_Cat
15-03-2008, 08:58 AM
It is almost too good to be true. Now is the perfect time for our Council to get together and work together, not bicker over details (which our city transport team can iron out). Alberta has money, the Feds have money, and there is a real commitment by people to do something about the environment - I can think of no better way, than building a truely great transit system in our great city.

I agree moahunter, I think the lesson that the City has learned about LRT or other transportation projects is that our council has to show leadership, instead of getting caught up in endless details, or getting derailed by a small but vocal interest group.

DanC
15-03-2008, 12:36 PM
If it goes up Connors Road, I will have to start campaigning for a stop at the top of the hill!

grish
15-03-2008, 12:42 PM
If it goes up Connors Road, I will have to start campaigning for a stop at the top of the hill!
thinking of the grade, i would like to see what actually is proposed. it might be really tricky.

NINTman
15-03-2008, 01:02 PM
Here's a good map by my friend Onishenko made:

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=108855711015090579191.0004481af23dbf3a47f59&t=h&z=10

NINTman
15-03-2008, 01:24 PM
Bus Rapid Transit loop between Health Sciences Station on the sLRT line and Bonnie Doon Station on the proposed Millwoods LRT line. No dedicated ROW. Attractive BRT busses can shuttle people quickly along Whyte avenue to both LRT stations.

http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?hl=en&gl=ca&ie=UTF8&oe=UTF8&msa=0&msid=110391119165386732096.0004487e5ff45fda080d8&ll=53.512858,-113.496323&spn=0.090134,0.160332&t=h&z=13

NINTman
15-03-2008, 01:42 PM
Also, a little off topic, but a tram line to serve West Jasper ave and 104th ave.

http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?hl=en&gl=ca&ie=UTF8&oe=UTF8&msa=0&msid=110391119165386732096.0004487ea8afd9b87882a&z=15

SteveB
15-03-2008, 02:35 PM
It is almost too good to be true.

That was my first thought, absolutely great news and how cool would it be to have simultaneous construction on 3 lines, that way we could get a station/year rather that waiting 2 or 3 years. Now we just need funding, come on "Feds and Ed" it would send a great message re green policy and help keep us a nice shade of dark blue.

Sonic Death Monkey
15-03-2008, 02:49 PM
Here's a good map by my friend Onishenko:

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=108855711015090579191.0004481af23dbf3a47f59&t=h&z=10

I like it! I especially like the route through Rossdale on its way to its terminal at Grandin Station. A station at 97 Ave and 105 St can service Telus field, Rossdale plant and the Kinsmen.

If that doesn't fly, another alternative for the downtown route:
From Connors Hill, run along a new bridge along the Low Level Bridge, then underground below the MacDonald Hotel to Churchill station.

NINTman
15-03-2008, 03:28 PM
Here is an Anthony Henday BRT line that can also have implications for the Millwoods LRT.

http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?hl=en&...7a552f792&z=12 (http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?hl=en&gl=ca&ptab=2&ie=UTF8&oe=UTF8&msa=0&msid=110391119165386732096.0004487f87c57a552f792&z=12)

richardW
15-03-2008, 06:36 PM
isnt it gonna connect at century park to the slrt? seriously though what is south of century park, other than the airport theres no real need to pass the henday.

Medwards
15-03-2008, 06:50 PM
isnt it gonna connect at century park to the slrt? seriously though what is south of century park, other than the airport theres no real need to pass the henday.
I would suggest you take a drive down there, and picture what its going to look like in 10 years of growth

highlander
15-03-2008, 07:02 PM
I posted this in the WLRT thread, but it fits here too.


With the newest announcement (millwoods planning study) I have concerns about the way LRT planning is going. With NLRT and WLRT, we at least know how the lines will interact with eachother, interlined in a tunnel through downtown. SELRT does not easily fit into the existing framework. I know the old 60's plans had more than 2 routes interlining, but that was a system for a city of 400,000, not 1m+.

Before a detailed planning study for SELRT, we need a long range transit plan, with a 30-50 year buildout horizon. We need to know where we will be building LRT legs #6,7&8. We need to know whether we will build tram or tram train lines, or commuter rail, or brt, and where. While we know that priorities may change, we need an overall plan before we can begin planning parts.

SELRTs specific problem is that we don't have any idea about further legs, so we don't know where it's other half will go. We don't know if it will be the last LRT line for decades so it should be spec'ed the same as the first 4, or if another 3 legs will come somewhat soon we need to examine whether low floor vehichles might be suited for the whole set.

We need to know where a S.park line would go, because it has an impact on the neighbourhoods that the millwoods line will serve. We need to know wheter there will be tram/streetcar lines that it could connect with, or commuter rail to feed it.

The last thing we need is an underground SLRT treminus that's a $100m 'temporary station (like the propose nait station) because we don't know whether it will continue to the west end, or St. Albert, or?

Please, we need a big picture plan so these lines arent all ad hoc.

kkozoriz
15-03-2008, 10:21 PM
Also posted in the WLRT but more of a systemwide idea.


Thinking about the MWLRT I'm seeing something along these lines:

From Churchill branch off east, station at the Quarters then cross the river near the Dawson Bridge. Head south on 84th/85th street to Bonnie Doon. From there, head south, over Argyle and the tracks heading south on 75th/66th to Mill Woods Town Centre.

A branch from the Bonnie Doon stop could head east to Sherwood Park.

Later, a line connecting Mill Woods to Century park for University access.

Regarding NWLRT Branch off the NLRT at the Royal Alec and follow 111th to 156, head south to Jasper Place and eventually Down to WLRT at Meadowlark. This line is a long ways in the future.

NLRT proceeds as planned running behind NAIT at the newly closed City Centre Airport. Under the tracks and up 113A St ro Castle Downs before Turning west to At. Albert.

mark
16-03-2008, 04:13 AM
highlander, I completely agree. The LRT momentum we're seeing now is fantastic, but we run the very serious risk of action without proper planning. I hope the transportation planners come up with a very comprehensive plan that includes consideration from population forecasts, land use patterns, regional connectivity, and car transportation habits. We're at a critical juncture, and while I'd love to see more LRT get built, it needs to be built in the right place.

Personally, I think the hub and spoke layout is totally wrong for Edmonton. The only reason I see for every line to head downtown is the implied benefit to downtown's revitalization. While I think it's important for downtown to be redeveloped, it would be a mistake to build a bunch of LRT lines that only go downtown if that's not right for the city. So far I haven't heard any solid reasoning for the hub and spoke layout; it certainly doesnt address the patterns of current trips made in cars (Edmonton PRT posted an map of this data once).

I say we build the seLRT along the lines of the gmap posted above by NINTman, but run a line east-west across 23 ave too. Put another along 75 st, one along Terwillegar, etc. I think we need peripheral LRT connectivity, not just a bunch of lines that only move people to downtown. Of course that's my uninformed opinion, and it's subject to change when presented with solid reasoning that says I'm wrong.

moahunter
16-03-2008, 09:58 AM
My view is that Council's role is to select the destinations (NAIT, WEM, Millwoods, maybe airport, etc) and let the experts choose the best routes.

As to the "grand vision" thing, I like the idea in principle, and see that we almost have that. But each party that contributes funding may have an influence on the grand vision too - for example, the Province may be willing to pay more, if we extend beyond the city borders. So any such vision will always be fluid, and may always be changed at the drop of a hat based on the outcome of an election. Even if we had every route mapped out everywhere tommorow, it would never be realized, it would just be a money wasting exercise.

If we look at the vision of LRT when it was first proposed, it was never fully implemented, due to all the details. Accordingly, the approach with Millwoods is right to me. Our Council says lets link it. Our planners say how it can be done. Our Council provides a united case so that we get the funding. But, each time a politicians stick their nose in, and says this transport recommendation is foolish because my pet route is better, all we do is show the funders that we can't agree ourselves, and turn the clock back on progress even further. When the LRT recommendation for Millwoods comes back, lets build it ASAP. We can fill in the gaps later, once we know what the impact is. Unless someone has a crystal ball, any other grand scheme is just blowing in the wind.

grish
16-03-2008, 10:05 AM
i think the LRT lines need to head downtown and they should cover the city. most of the proposals above are for the south side of the city. if we do that, we will grow the city in one direction risking getting something similar to Calgary--a really looooong city.

lux
16-03-2008, 10:10 AM
The only reason I see for every line to head downtown is the implied benefit to downtown's revitalization.

I'd agree with you if we required people to get off the train downtown. But SLRT and the proposed WLRT down 87th will allow people to also connect to a major hospital, a university, grant macewan, southgate, century park, meadowlark, WEM, schools and activities along the way, sports venues in the northeast.... this is hardly all about downtown.

That being said, once the spine of the system is built, i have no objection to a train on 137th ave going across the top of the city, and another one at 23rd ave going across the bottom.

moahunter
16-03-2008, 10:54 AM
i think the LRT lines need to head downtown and they should cover the city. most of the proposals above are for the south side of the city. if we do that, we will grow the city in one direction risking getting something similar to Calgary--a really looooong city.
I agree that LRT should not just be South - although I think South is very valuable, for the simple reason, that it relieves traffic pressure on the bridges. If we get a Millwoods line, seems to me, we will have 2 lines North (NAIT and Clareview), two lines South (Century Park and Millwoods), and one line West (probably 87 avenue, but whatever route). That's not just South to me, it's the initial spine of reaching out to all the corners of the city. NAIT to Millwoods, Clareview to Century Park and WEM, all running through the core. We know for certain that these routes will be popular, as the express buses show us that. We can add new spokes or sub spokes (or even rings) later, as we see start to see what effect these new lines have. The key is to keep the momentum going, keep building to places where it has been proven that people go to. Demand will grow for LRT service, it will become more and more deisrable, making it less and less difficult to push through neighborhooods / replace roads and integrate into the feeder transit.

mick
16-03-2008, 12:21 PM
Highlander - I doubt it will run on the current underground line due to the interlining problems you mention. Rather, I think it will terminate at central (for now) with transfers required for other destinations. My guess for the route: a tunnel south from central exiting half way up the river bank, near the low level bridge, using a skytrain like structure to cross the river and the james mac and to soften the grade up connors.

grish
16-03-2008, 01:45 PM
i think the LRT lines need to head downtown and they should cover the city. most of the proposals above are for the south side of the city. if we do that, we will grow the city in one direction risking getting something similar to Calgary--a really looooong city.
I agree that LRT should not just be South - although I think South is very valuable, for the simple reason, that it relieves traffic pressure on the bridges. If we get a Millwoods line, seems to me, we will have 2 lines North (NAIT and Clareview), two lines South (Century Park and Millwoods), and one line West (probably 87 avenue, but whatever route). That's not just South to me, it's the initial spine of reaching out to all the corners of the city. NAIT to Millwoods, Clareview to Century Park and WEM, all running through the core. We know for certain that these routes will be popular, as the express buses show us that. We can add new spokes or sub spokes (or even rings) later, as we see start to see what effect these new lines have. The key is to keep the momentum going, keep building to places where it has been proven that people go to. Demand will grow for LRT service, it will become more and more deisrable, making it less and less difficult to push through neighborhooods / replace roads and integrate into the feeder transit.

the 87 ave to WEM just visits SW for a moment and then heads south. the west and the NW will not be served unless the WEM line goes through there. but that's a topic for another thread. Millwoods line should go downtown through bonnie doon to cover more of the city. we should not have yet another feeder into the existing line. we cannot have all lines feeding into the same existing line.

Medwards
16-03-2008, 01:56 PM
Yes, actually, we could have all lines feeding off the main line, if done properly.

Thanks,

etownboarder
16-03-2008, 02:01 PM
Yes, actually, we could have all lines feeding off the main line, if done properly.

Thanks,

Says who? I personally don't think having all the lines feeding off one main line is a smart idea. When the day comes that the service isn't adequate enough to serve the growing population of the city, it'll be an expensive fix.

NINTman
16-03-2008, 02:06 PM
The key is to keep the momentum going, keep building to places where it has been proven that people go to. Demand will grow for LRT service, it will become more and more deisrable, making it less and less difficult to push through neighborhooods / replace roads and integrate into the feeder transit.

I agree, the planning proposals that will be made for wLRT, Millwoods LRT and other lines in the future will be at least good approximations to the ideal case (if a generally accepted ideal case could even be determined). And I think the reason why all of this planning is occuring almost simultaneously is to start planning out in detail a regional mass transit plan. From the Journal article above:

"Administration proposes to have the strategic plan for the city's portion of the regional LRT system to city council by the end of 2008," says the report.

And so, we will have an idea of what we want to achieve, and we will develop plans that will be good. There could be 100s of different variations to a city-wide LRT system plan, but unfortunately I feel we do not have the time to contend every point. Let's pick a system plan that is pretty close to optimal and build it now.

Think of how transformational a decent, efficient (possibly not perfect in everybody's eyes) city-wide LRT system will be in terms of attitudes about higher density, better pedestrian street life, and even public health. I think it was in Radiant City there was a factoid presented that those who live in suburbs and are more reliant on a car are heavier (I forget by how much it said, but it was statistically significant), and then there are the health implications that are tied to that. And there are other reasons, and so forth.

This year we have the political capital to spend, to plan and get on with building a city-wide and possibly even regional LRT system.

Edmcowboy11
16-03-2008, 05:04 PM
My biggest question for a SELRT line is where it will cross the river and where will it surface once on the south side of the river. Also should there be a consideration for a further future LRT line to Sherwood park via Capilano area?

mark
16-03-2008, 05:06 PM
The only reason I see for every line to head downtown is the implied benefit to downtown's revitalization.

I'd agree with you if we required people to get off the train downtown. But SLRT and the proposed WLRT down 87th will allow people to also connect to a major hospital, a university, grant macewan, southgate, century park, meadowlark, WEM, schools and activities along the way, sports venues in the northeast.... this is hardly all about downtown.

It's not like those major destinations can only be served by an all-lines-lead-downtown system-- a peripheral ring could easily hit the same spots. If we want people to seriously consider routinely leaving the car at home, we need to build LRT where most people live and where most people go on a daily basis. We have to own up to the fact that Edmonton's population density is in the suburbs- it is peripheral, and that's where it will continue to grow the fastest. Downtown is gaining residential momentum, and there are a handful of significant infill projects, but new suburbs support a higher population density than mature neighborhoods and the raw population numbers show concentration around the periphery. Spoke and hub is wrong for Edmonton.

lux
16-03-2008, 06:00 PM
It's not like those major destinations can only be served by an all-lines-lead-downtown system-- a peripheral ring could easily hit the same spots. If we want people to seriously consider routinely leaving the car at home, we need to build LRT where most people live and where most people go on a daily basis. We have to own up to the fact that Edmonton's population density is in the suburbs- it is peripheral, and that's where it will continue to grow the fastest. Downtown is gaining residential momentum, and there are a handful of significant infill projects, but new suburbs support a higher population density than mature neighborhoods and the raw population numbers show concentration around the periphery. Spoke and hub is wrong for Edmonton.

Can you give an example of a peripheral city with ring-like infrastructure? I think spoke-and-hub is 100% correct for what Edmonton is, and also for what it needs to become. Maybe if I had a contrasting example I'd see it differently but I can't think of one that has been built. By the way, the shortest way to the other side of a ring is through the middle. And, we certainly don't have a spoke-and-hub for road infrastructure, so LRT as a spoke-and-hub compliments what we have. I just don't see a ring being better in any way.

moahunter
16-03-2008, 06:09 PM
Can you give an example of a peripheral city with ring-like infrastructure?
Moscow does with respect to roads, above ground, the city has built up as rings extending out. But even there, in a ring city, they primarily use spokes for their subway, which is universally acknowledged as one of the best in the world. 176 Stations, 12 lines, train every 90 seconds, average stations of 1.8 km apart:

http://subway.umka.org/maps/moscow.gif

People don't travel from residential neighborhood to residential neighborhood every day, which is why rings, while an option for the future, do not make much sense now. People travel from residential, to destinations (the most important being work, since it is twice a day for most of the year), which is why destinations / employment nodes are the LRT priority. Spokes work, which is why the great transit systems of the world use spokes.

There is an interesting urban legend in wiki about the circle line that was added in to Moscow above. Something about Stalin putting his coffee cup on plans, and the designers mistaking the ring left behind, for what Stalin wanted! A ring may work for us one day too, but they are almost always add in's later, to link existing lines and add more options.

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

highlander
16-03-2008, 10:10 PM
...And I think the reason why all of this planning is occuring almost simultaneously is to start planning out in detail a regional mass transit plan. From the Journal article above:

"Administration proposes to have the strategic plan for the city's portion of the regional LRT system to city council by the end of 2008," says the report.

And so, we will have an idea of what we want to achieve, and we will develop plans that will be good. There could be 100s of different variations to a city-wide LRT system plan, but unfortunately I feel we do not have the time to contend every point. Let's pick a system plan that is pretty close to optimal and build it now.
...

This year we have the political capital to spend, to plan and get on with building a city-wide and possibly even regional LRT system.
(ephasis mine)

That's what's missing. We are planning an LRT system, based only on our current LRT model.

We should be planning a city-wide and possibly regional MASS TRANSIT system.

WE have momentum in panning that we will not lose if we take abreath on detailed planning as we build the west line and north stub. There's enough construction there for 7-8 years at least, so we have 4-5 years we can map out the big picture, review modes and models, and chart a course for the next 50 years. Sure things will change in that time , and the plan can't be set in stone, but we need to have one, and it is clear to me that there is nothing in existance that resembles a cohesive, reasoned and up-to-date plan for mass transit in Edmonton.

The plans from the 60's +70's will be nearly built out, and heavily modified by the time NLRT and WLRT are complete, not to mention severely out of date, and not reflective of the real edmoton on the street which has more than doubled since then.

The transportation master plan was set in a much leaner time, when finishing SLRT and adding a few BRTs seemed more than we could hope for. The recent plan that came out of the regional summit was more a political exercise than transit, with LRT lines to Fort Saskatchewan, baumont, leduc and Spruce/Stony where LRT as we know it won't make sense for generations.

I say as we know it because there are LRT models that could make sense for the satelite cities, others that could work for busy inner city arterials, and others that could tie it all together. A diesel commuter/regional rail type LRT on improved CN tracks might be useful, or a tram train that runs on street downtown and on freight ROW in the country. The freight ROW model that works well (despite not being pretty or spawning TODs) in the north east should not be abandoned where the cost savings could outweigh the percieved downside of that model. BRT may have a place, particularly as a ring or suburban crosstown route, as others have mentioned. and last but not least the integration of any rapid line with the non-rapid transit system that will provide acces to the majority of the city.

Maybe there is such a plan, but I havent seen it.

NINTman
17-03-2008, 11:57 PM
so when does this go to council this week?

Medwards
18-03-2008, 12:22 AM
A quick look on any major cities website reveals a transportation master plan.

Edmonton is developing its new plan as we speak! http://www.movingedmonton.ca/



The City of Edmonton is currently undergoing a process to update the 1999 Transportation Master Plan.
This website is intended to provide the citizens of Edmonton and regional stakeholders information on the process and draft reports leading to the adoption of an updated Transportation Master Plan.
The purpose of the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) is to establish a framework for how the City of Edmonton will address its future transportation needs. The current TMP (http://www.edmonton.ca/RoadsTraffic/TMPMarch1999HRES.pdf) was adopted on April 14, 1999. It provides the essential policy basis for how transportation funding is spent, and what projects or programs the City focuses on to provide an integrated transportation system for citizens. The TMP sets policy within the broader context of the land use planning goals as outlined in the City’s Municipal Development Plan -Focus Edmonton (http://www.focusedmonton.ca/home.html) and the update is being developed concurrently with the City plan.
The TMP is also directly tied into the city's plans for Transforming Edmonton. (http://www.edmonton.ca/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_0_265_210_0_43/http;/CMSServer/COEWeb/city+government/plans+and+initiatives/)
For more information visit:

www.edmonton.ca/transportation (http://www.edmonton.ca/transportation)
Transportation Master Plan Page (http://www.edmonton.ca/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_2_288_222_0_43/http;/CMSServer/COEWeb/roads+and+traffic/plans+and+initiatives/transportation+master+plan/)

Medwards
18-03-2008, 12:25 AM
You may also want to review the Capital Region Integrated Growth Management Plan to see how the provincial government is seeing our Region grow.
http://www.alberta.ca/home/crigmp.cfm

Medwards
18-03-2008, 12:26 AM
And by the way, theres no point planning a regional system until the little Sherwood Parks, and St Alberts and Leduc keep playing that 'We're autonomous game' once we can drop that racket, and start acting as a metropoltian region with shared costs and revenue, maybe we can start sharing services. Transit included.

highlander
18-03-2008, 08:14 AM
You may also want to review the Capital Region Integrated Growth Management Plan to see how the provincial government is seeing our Region grow.
http://www.alberta.ca/home/crigmp.cfm


While there is some good discussion here the plan is essentially useless in terms of planning higher-order transit, and there is nothing here about transit within edmonton, just between municipalities. There is no mention of a millwoods line, and the N line is shown going to St. Albert, not Castledowns where is would serve edmontonians. (nothing against st. albert, but NLRT shouldn't go there, the MW line should pass through/west of downtown and go to st.albert).

highlander
18-03-2008, 08:20 AM
And by the way, theres no point planning a regional system until the little Sherwood Parks, and St Alberts and Leduc keep playing that 'We're autonomous game' once we can drop that racket, and start acting as a metropoltian region with shared costs and revenue, maybe we can start sharing services. Transit included.

We don't need to plan a regional system, although thinking beyond our borders is wise. We need to plan one for edmonton, and as soon as you consider millwoods(unless it's for a spur off SLRT) you have to recognise that this is something that is completely unplanned.

For the record, St.Albert has dropped most of the independent facade and leduc and stony spruce are mostly playing nice too.

Medwards
18-03-2008, 08:25 AM
For the record, St.Albert has dropped most of the independent facade and leduc and stony spruce are mostly playing nice too.

Thanks, I'm quite aware of this. under the current weather conditions, its only really sturgeon county and Strathcona county which beat the indendent war cries!

MylesC
18-03-2008, 11:06 AM
While a regional system should be planned right now - first we need to build the core of the system ;)

SteveB
18-03-2008, 01:00 PM
And by the way, theres no point planning a regional system until the little Sherwood Parks, and St Alberts and Leduc keep playing that 'We're autonomous game' once we can drop that racket, and start acting as a metropoltian region with shared costs and revenue, maybe we can start sharing services. Transit included.

Unlike highlander I think it's key to include all communities in the initial plan, they create more carbon as they have further to drive.

Sadly, like highlander points out, it's really only my "hamlet" which is refusing to play ball.

RichardS
18-03-2008, 01:10 PM
Topic folks. Regional transit is another topic, and regional issues have an entire forum.. :)

JayBee
20-03-2008, 06:45 AM
For the record I am extremely enthused to read about this. This would definitely supplant a megatrolley route to Millwoods in my mind, if funding is for real. (but still doesn't affect in any way my support for trolley fleet renewal and maximum reliance on them around the core).
Can we really get all LRT spokes done simultaneously?

dwells
20-03-2008, 07:59 AM
Can we really get all LRT spokes done simultaneously?You are expecting the impossible. Too many of us have a one track mind.

JayBee
20-03-2008, 08:26 AM
^ translation: "I for one doubt the funding will be available. The kettle is black!" ;)

dwells
20-03-2008, 10:31 AM
^ translation: "I for one doubt the funding will be available. The kettle is black!" ;)
Touche!:)

On this one I feel that we are thinking too small. Our minds are still in the 1970s and we're trying to bluff with a losing hand.

We should have a complete regional plan with tracks as straight as possible (given the constraints of topography and mature neighborhoods) linking Bon Accord with Leduc, Ft. Sask. with Devon, Stony Plain with Sh. Park, and Morinville with Beaumont. Just look at the number of federal and provincial constituencies that would impact.

Supported by a decent bus service to all the industrial, commercial and educational nodes, such a plan should surely convince the province and the feds to chip in and contrary to those among us who feel our infrastructure costs can't handle it, think of the number of cars that would not be on our roads.

NINTman
05-04-2008, 09:13 PM
What happened to this, did the study get approved?

Cleisthenis
04-07-2008, 01:54 PM
NINT: Yes.

Edmcowboy11
04-07-2008, 11:56 PM
It is very exciting to hear about plans for NELRT, WLRT, MWLRT and extentions on NLRT and SLRT. I hope they can approve some of this soon so we can start really seeing some major progress for LRT in Edmonton.

I think that the opinion of having LRT develloped within the city first before moving out to places like St.Albert, Sherwood Park, etc... is the best plan for now. Although, how about this, how much does the population of St.Albert and the government of St.Albert want LRT to come to them. If they really want it then what are they willing to do bring it to their area. Could the city of St.Albert not do their own study on an LRT line that would travel through their community. If they were to do this, maybe that would be encouragement enough for the city of Edmonton to plan a route out that way. Same for Sherwood Park, Nisku/Airport/Leduc and whatever other connecting community.

One way or another though, it would be nice to see construction throughout the city to bring LRT to a much larger majority of our population.

KenL
06-07-2008, 11:01 PM
MEDWARDS thanks for throwing up the link to the regional planning studies, section 5 is for the LRT if people don't want to sift through the whole thing, one thing to remember is they will probably change the lines listed as BRT to LRT in the regional study since edmonton has dropped BRT development in favour of LRT. BTW the report does a forward look to 2040 and is quite an interesting read.

JBear
04-12-2008, 11:58 AM
Interesting little read. I remember living in millwoods with 20min express bus to downtown in the morning. Don't know if they can still manage that.

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Mill+Woods+could+cost/1031707/story.html

IanO
04-12-2008, 12:03 PM
imagine, for a second, our city with

SLRT (to the YEG)
NLRT
WLRT (87ave)
SELRT


now that is a city i want to be apart of

Bill
04-12-2008, 12:12 PM
Wow!

Good article.

Hopefully the plan will move from paper to reality.

sundance
04-12-2008, 01:19 PM
http://www.edmonton.ca/transportation/ets/lrt_projects/8068.aspx

Alas no details yet

And there already is a thread for this
http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum/showthread.php?p=93567

grish
04-12-2008, 01:21 PM
It would be really great to have

SLRT to YEG
NLRT past NAIT
WLRT along Jasper ave and SPR to WEM
SELRT to Millwoods

Keep on it, city. WE really need this.

deedub35
04-12-2008, 02:06 PM
http://www.edmonton.ca/transportation/ets/lrt_projects/8068.aspx
Alas no details yet

Looks like the city has something else going on. If you click on the link below there is a reserved link for "Northwest to City Limits Planning Study (details to follow as information becomes available)". Hmmmm.

http://www.edmonton.ca/transportation/ets/lrt-projects.aspx

RTA
04-12-2008, 03:15 PM
^ NAIT line, beyond NAIT.

monument
04-12-2008, 03:19 PM
The Millwoods LRT should START construction in the south and then head north to connect with the existing lines. This way, it will indeed be a line to nowhere until it is finished. Quite an incentive to get it built, huh?

Who Dat?
04-12-2008, 03:20 PM
Well with all this new infrastructure money supposedly on its way to "fix" the economy hopefully we can develop a plan relatively fast so we can get as much money as we can from the feds to help us pay for it.

richardW
04-12-2008, 05:32 PM
2 Billion well spent imho.

Edmonton PRT
04-12-2008, 05:35 PM
My best guesses

NLRT to NAIT $800M - $900M
SLRT to YEG $800M - $1,200M
NLRT past NAIT $1,200M - $1,600M
WLRT along Jasper ave and SPR to WEM $1,600M to $2,100M
SELRT to Millwoods $1,800M to $2,400M

Total cost $6,200,000,000.00 to $7,900,000,000.00

Now just where are we goingto get that kind of money?

Medwards
04-12-2008, 05:46 PM
over 15 years? Lots of places to get that money from. Province, civic, federally.

Dare Edmonton to think BIG for once rather then penny pinch every little dime and nickel till we have nothing.

Doppelganger
04-12-2008, 06:06 PM
^^ Were the two extra zeros added behind the decimal place in order to make these numbers look even larger than they really are?

My concern about widespread LRT expansion is that the lines be built where people currently travel by automobile. Are we sure that a hub and spoke model (with downtown being the hub) works for Edmonton when so many of our citizens work in places outside the downtown core?

Edmonton PRT
04-12-2008, 07:55 PM
^^ Were the two extra zeros added behind the decimal place in order to make these numbers look even larger than they really are?

My concern about widespread LRT expansion is that the lines be built where people currently travel by automobile. Are we sure that a hub and spoke model (with downtown being the hub) works for Edmonton when so many of our citizens work in places outside the downtown core?


When it is taxpayers money, every penny counts.;)

You are correct that the majority of people do not travel to downtown. The majority circle the innerring road.

See Map:
http://www.edmontonprt.com/2003%20traffic%20flow%20map%20dark%2072dpi.jpg

ChrisD
04-12-2008, 08:44 PM
^ NAIT line, beyond NAIT.Yep, already (recently) awarded to CH2M Hill.

ChrisD
04-12-2008, 08:47 PM
My best guesses

NLRT to NAIT $800M - $900M
SLRT to YEG $800M - $1,200M
NLRT past NAIT $1,200M - $1,600M
WLRT along Jasper ave and SPR to WEM $1,600M to $2,100M
SELRT to Millwoods $1,800M to $2,400M

Total cost $6,200,000,000.00 to $7,900,000,000.00

Now just where are we goingto get that kind of money?
The lines you referenced will be constructed over the next 20-30 years, not tomorrow. Over time the funding should work. The City just has to be aggressive.

ChrisD
04-12-2008, 08:49 PM
^^ Were the two extra zeros added behind the decimal place in order to make these numbers look even larger than they really are?

My concern about widespread LRT expansion is that the lines be built where people currently travel by automobile. Are we sure that a hub and spoke model (with downtown being the hub) works for Edmonton when so many of our citizens work in places outside the downtown core?If the lines connect other major employment hubs outside of the downtown then it will be an efficient system.

Medwards
04-12-2008, 08:49 PM
Downtown is the hub of all hubs. The Central point.

lux
04-12-2008, 09:35 PM
When it is taxpayers money, every penny counts.;)

You are correct that the majority of people do not travel to downtown. The majority circle the innerring road.


Imagine how much time they could save by going straight across the ring instead of travelling in circles!

The_Cat
04-12-2008, 10:14 PM
[/QUOTE]
Imagine how much time they could save by going straight across the ring instead of travelling in circles![/QUOTE]

So far, the LRT touches on two major employment nodes, Downtown and the University of Alberta/University Hospital. The South LRT will reach the Neil Crawford Centre/South Campus and places like Alberta Research Park/SEC will be in reasonable proximity. The NAIT line will reach Grant MacEwan, NAIT and the Royal Alexandra Hospital, and the Mill Woods Line will reach the Grey Nuns Hospital. Finally, the West LRT will reach WEM and Misericordia Hospital. These lines will reach the major employment nodes.

In other cases (like industrial parks), a car or truck is probably the preferred mode of transportation, especially when it comes to goods and services and where people have to deliver goods. I'm not sure whether LRT would benefit these areas, although I'm sure that there are major engineering firms in some areas.

Bill
04-12-2008, 10:59 PM
Having an LRT running in all major directions is a major plus in attacting businesses and people to Edmonton.

It also contributes to the image of Edmonton being organized and somewhat modern.

I personally prefer the 'hub-and-spoke' model of a LRT system. Reminds me of UK's subway system, which I found to be very efficient.

Edmonton PRT
04-12-2008, 11:34 PM
My best guesses

NLRT to NAIT $800M - $900M
SLRT to YEG $800M - $1,200M
NLRT past NAIT $1,200M - $1,600M
WLRT along Jasper ave and SPR to WEM $1,600M to $2,100M
SELRT to Millwoods $1,800M to $2,400M

Total cost $6,200,000,000.00 to $7,900,000,000.00

Now just where are we going to get that kind of money?
The lines you referenced will be constructed over the next 20-30 years, not tomorrow. Over time the funding should work. The City just has to be aggressive.

Don't you think that in 20 to 30 years that the costs will rise into the stratosphere?

In 1978 we completed 3 above ground stations and two underground stations at a cost of $9.4M/km. Factoring inflation at 204% inflation (source, Bank of Canada Inflation Calculator) that is $28.7M in 2008 dollars. The SLRT is being built at $90M/km or nearly three times the consumer inflation rate since 1978 or 9 times overall ($9.4M/km in 1978 to $90M/km in 2008

Current estimates for SELRT are $90M to $180M/km ($1B to $2B cost) depending on the outcome of the engineering review.

Considering that with an economic downturn and slower population growth will delay construction of new LRT lines, your 20 to 30 year timespan will probably be a good guess.

If we mirror the past 30 years and apply the same 9 times inflation to the SELRT proposal could cost $800M/km to $1,600M/km or $10B to $20B for the project by 2038

The_Cat
04-12-2008, 11:38 PM
If we need any argument about the speed of the LRT, compare driving from downtown to university (especially on a day like today) to taking the LRT. As it stands now, the LRT does not serve that much of Edmonton. But as the LRT expands, I'm sure that more businesses will locate near the stations, and I also think that we could attract more head offices.

The_Cat
04-12-2008, 11:46 PM
Edmonton PRT, I would imagine that above ground LRT would cost much less than the underground LRT. Even with an economic slowdown, it could be a better time for the city to plan for future LRT.

highlander
05-12-2008, 12:04 AM
My best guesses

NLRT to NAIT $800M - $900M
SLRT to YEG $800M - $1,200M
NLRT past NAIT $1,200M - $1,600M
WLRT along Jasper ave and SPR to WEM $1,600M to $2,100M
SELRT to Millwoods $1,800M to $2,400M

Total cost $6,200,000,000.00 to $7,900,000,000.00

Now just where are we going to get that kind of money?
The lines you referenced will be constructed over the next 20-30 years, not tomorrow. Over time the funding should work. The City just has to be aggressive.

Don't you think that in 20 to 30 years that the costs will rise into the stratosphere?

In 1978 we completed 3 above ground stations and two underground stations at a cost of $9.4M/km. Factoring inflation at 204% inflation (source, Bank of Canada Inflation Calculator) that is $28.7M in 2008 dollars. The SLRT is being built at $90M/km or nearly three times the consumer inflation rate since 1978 or 9 times overall ($9.4M/km in 1978 to $90M/km in 2008

Current estimates for SELRT are $90M to $180M/km ($1B to $2B cost) depending on the outcome of the engineering review.

Considering that with an economic downturn and slower population growth will delay construction of new LRT lines, your 20 to 30 year timespan will probably be a good guess.

If we mirror the past 30 years and apply the same 9 times inflation to the SELRT proposal could cost $800M/km to $1,600M/km or $10B to $20B for the project by 2038

I don't know anything about the numbers that we have been quoted for SELRT, but the NLRT costs that you love to cite already account for inflation. Of course that's hard to do when the timeline is unknown, but for what it's worth the city budget predicts 13,16,16,13, &13% construction inflation for the next 5 years. I think that they're crazy, just projecting out the worst few years in recent history.

I do wonder if the city is considering any budget (low cost) options. using the high level bridge and existing rail rows, low floor platforms and connecting at grandin only, and I'm sure that we could find an option for well under $1B, especially if single track or gauntlet track sections could be considered at tight spots.

highlander
05-12-2008, 12:12 AM
http://www.edmonton.ca/transportation/ets/lrt_projects/8068.aspx
Alas no details yet

Looks like the city has something else going on. If you click on the link below there is a reserved link for "Northwest to City Limits Planning Study (details to follow as information becomes available)". Hmmmm.

http://www.edmonton.ca/transportation/ets/lrt-projects.aspx

I don't like the sound of this. It sounds like it was decided without any study or debate that the line should go to St. Albert and we only need to figure out how to get there. How generous of us when castle downs will go without.

I seriously hope that st albert has already committed $1b for the part within their borders and another couple hundred million for their share of the line that gets from here to there.

Medwards
05-12-2008, 08:38 AM
My best guesses

NLRT to NAIT $800M - $900M
SLRT to YEG $800M - $1,200M
NLRT past NAIT $1,200M - $1,600M
WLRT along Jasper ave and SPR to WEM $1,600M to $2,100M
SELRT to Millwoods $1,800M to $2,400M

Total cost $6,200,000,000.00 to $7,900,000,000.00

Now just where are we going to get that kind of money?
The lines you referenced will be constructed over the next 20-30 years, not tomorrow. Over time the funding should work. The City just has to be aggressive.

Don't you think that in 20 to 30 years that the costs will rise into the stratosphere?

In 1978 we completed 3 above ground stations and two underground stations at a cost of $9.4M/km. Factoring inflation at 204% inflation (source, Bank of Canada Inflation Calculator) that is $28.7M in 2008 dollars. The SLRT is being built at $90M/km or nearly three times the consumer inflation rate since 1978 or 9 times overall ($9.4M/km in 1978 to $90M/km in 2008

Current estimates for SELRT are $90M to $180M/km ($1B to $2B cost) depending on the outcome of the engineering review.

Considering that with an economic downturn and slower population growth will delay construction of new LRT lines, your 20 to 30 year timespan will probably be a good guess.

If we mirror the past 30 years and apply the same 9 times inflation to the SELRT proposal could cost $800M/km to $1,600M/km or $10B to $20B for the project by 2038


you do realize that if costs and inflation rises so does everything else. Its all proportional. 5 dollars 20 years ago was worth alot more then it is today.

IanO
05-12-2008, 09:33 AM
Edmonton CANNOT wait 20-30 yrs for this.. we need to have the SE and WLRT going at the same time IMO.

Edmonton PRT
05-12-2008, 09:48 AM
you do realize that if costs and inflation rises so does everything else. Its all proportional. 5 dollars 20 years ago was worth alot more then it is today.

:smt064Again Medwards you didn't read my post I even put it in bold just for you. I stated that the cost of building SLRT is "three times the consumer inflation rate since 1978 or 9 times overall"

So it demonstrates that building LRT is not proportional but is rapidly rising faster than inflation. If LRT expansion was proportional to consumer inflation I wouldn't have any problem with building more LRT. The SLRT would have only cost $30M/km instead $90M/km and proposed lines like SELRT are $90M/km to $180M/km would cost only $30M/km to $60M/km

Cat's point that during an economic slowdown it is a good time to build is tempered with the fact that during lean times the City, the Province and the Feds won't have money. This is history repeating itself. We built the first NELRT lined during a boom and we did it for a very reasonable cost ($9.4M/km in '78, $28.7M in 2008 dollars) mostly because it used an existing right-of-way. After the NEP and bust of 1980 LRT projects were stalled and costs to build rose sharply. We do not have any significant left over right-of-ways and the costs to cross the river and any tunnelling are extremely expensive.

Failure to analyze how we got here, learn from our mistakes and realize that the spiralling costs have made LRT expansion unaffordable is just living in LA LA Land. Get a grip on reality and lets look at improving bus routes, encourage people to move into the mature neighbourhoods with improved transit service, more express service, reduce the number of stops and look at better alternatives.

highlander
05-12-2008, 10:29 AM
you do realize that if costs and inflation rises so does everything else. Its all proportional. 5 dollars 20 years ago was worth alot more then it is today.

:smt064Again Medwards you didn't read my post I even put it in bold just for you. I stated that the cost of building SLRT is "three times the consumer inflation rate since 1978 or 9 times overall"

So it demonstrates that building LRT is not proportional but is rapidly rising faster than inflation. If LRT expansion was proportional to consumer inflation I wouldn't have any problem with building more LRT. The SLRT would have only cost $30M/km instead $90M/km and proposed lines like SELRT are $90M/km to $180M/km would cost only $30M/km to $60M/km

Cat's point that during an economic slowdown it is a good time to build is tempered with the fact that during lean times the City, the Province and the Feds won't have money. This is history repeating itself. We built the first NELRT lined during a boom and we did it for a very reasonable cost ($9.4M/km in '78, $28.7M in 2008 dollars) mostly because it used an existing right-of-way. After the NEP and bust of 1980 LRT projects were stalled and costs to build rose sharply. We do not have any significant left over right-of-ways and the costs to cross the river and any tunnelling are extremely expensive.

Failure to analyze how we got here, learn from our mistakes and realize that the spiralling costs have made LRT expansion unaffordable is just living in LA LA Land. Get a grip on reality and lets look at improving bus routes, encourage people to move into the mature neighbourhoods with improved transit service, more express service, reduce the number of stops and look at better alternatives.

I agree with your diagnosis, but not all of your cure.

In millwood's case we do have ROW to get us there (from the highlevel bridge, but for some reason we don't want to use it. You are correct noting the incredible benfits NELRT got from the existing ROW, especially on cost, but most of our city has forgotten how inexpensively it can be done. It doesn't all need to be pretty, it's a transportation project, not a museum.

Instead of seing the benefits of doing things the inexpensive way we only see the negatives, like minimal TOD (a problem not all attributable to the design) and unsightly industrial backyards. Well, for all that NELRT works pretty darn well, don't you think?

Edmonton PRT
05-12-2008, 10:47 AM
I agree.

Use existing ROW's to make LRT more economical. The biggest mistake in past LRT planning was not lobbying the Feds to insist that we could use the top deck of the High Level Bridge in the 1980's. We could have built far cheaper to 34 ave and then split east/west to Millwoods and to Century Park for far less than the SLRT and it would have been completed a decade ago.

We should use the HLB to Millwoods.

Medwards
05-12-2008, 11:07 AM
The city did lobby the feds for use of the high level bridge, and turned up empty.

Currently, the province owns the ROW for the high level bridge, and I doubt they are very interested in giving that up.

I'd much rather see a route to millwoods via bonniedoon.

Theres many reasons why SLRT is "9x times consumer inflation" or whatever you state. Your post answers itself though. NELRT was build... along a pre-existing ROW... SLRT doesn't. LRT is constructed now with cement ties, before it was wooden ties. etc etc etc

MagicMonkey
05-12-2008, 01:36 PM
I've got two things to say; first why not use the pedestrian bridge across the river near the Muttart, second why,if it cost so much for our stations, don't they look like this:
http://img.rian.ru/images/11862/17/118621710.jpghttp://img.rian.ru/images/11862/14/118621415.jpghttp://img.rian.ru/images/11862/15/118621508.jpghttp://img.rian.ru/images/11862/14/118621421.jpg

Medwards
05-12-2008, 01:38 PM
I doubt the pedestrian bridge is made to support the weight of LRT tracks, LRT consists, and other LRT infrastructure.

grish
05-12-2008, 01:50 PM
you are posting pictures of stations built in moscow (and yes, they are this beautiful) at a time when moscow was showcased to the world as the best capital of the best communist country in a best society. the labour cost nothing, the materials cost nothing, and there was no public debate about the cost, line alignment, or the look. It was all centrally decided.

moahunter
05-12-2008, 02:20 PM
I doubt the pedestrian bridge is made to support the weight of LRT tracks, LRT consists, and other LRT infrastructure.
I agree. I remember someone else pointing out in another thread that it makes more sense to build dedicated bridges than multi purpose ones. They last longer, are easier to maintain, and less intrusive. It also gives another design oppotunity to make something pretty.

Edmonton PRT
05-12-2008, 10:12 PM
Those pedestrian bridges are not designed to handle two, 5 car LRT trains passing each other which together weigh almost 600 tonnes with full passenger loads.

highlander
05-12-2008, 11:27 PM
The city did lobby the feds for use of the high level bridge, and turned up empty.

Currently, the province owns the ROW for the high level bridge, and I doubt they are very interested in giving that up.

...

Why not? it obviously won't be used for HSR anytime soon, and it's use could be a very valuable gift to the city that costs the province nothing. It's something that could save the city a couple hundred million, and on the off chance HSR is ever built there's no reason the two services couldn't share the tracks within city limits, so HSR would have some pre-built track to use. it's not like they could scream through old strathcona at 180km/hr on dedicated tracks either.

MagicMonkey
05-12-2008, 11:35 PM
If that's the case then why are we talking about depriving ourselves of valuable bridges with our already congested bridge infrastructure in and out of our already too isolated downtown when there is talk of building another vehicle bridge to increase accessibility? Plus those commie stations were alot of them rebuilt, and if you look at the images of the new stations added within the last eight years they are PERMANENT buildings not transiant looking transit stations which apear almost to be prefab like our own stations. (See Coliseum station)http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/ca/ETS_LRT_Coliseum.jpg/800px-ETS_LRT_Coliseum.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/00/MosMetro_Trubnaya_1.JPG/800px-MosMetro_Trubnaya_1.JPG

highlander
05-12-2008, 11:53 PM
Functionally, coloseum station is awesome. Aesthetically, it needs paint selected by a non-colourblind person and a whole new canopy so it doesn't have to share with stadium anymore.

Personally I like corona and bay just as well as the moscow station you show. One thing that has to be considered is that their system is fully undergound, ours is exposed so polished granite might not be the best choice for a floor.

Otherwise I think that there is a fear of looking like you're spending big money, even though the cost might not be too big. Stone tiles on the floor and walls of central station platform level might cost $1M, and another $2m for the mezzanine, so the money isn't huge, but the optics would be horrible, I can see the sun's editorial now...

Edmonton PRT
06-12-2008, 12:48 AM
The city did lobby the feds for use of the high level bridge, and turned up empty.

Currently, the province owns the ROW for the high level bridge, and I doubt they are very interested in giving that up.

...

I know they lobbied CP and the Feds in the 80's but they didn't lobby very hard. They could have brought the subject up publicly, through the media and demonstrated that it was imperative to acquire the high level bridge.

The_Cat
06-12-2008, 12:51 AM
I think it might be better to build an LRT bridge instead of using one of the existing bridges. I'm thinking of one of two possibilities:

(1) A line from Churchill/Central Station, with a tunnel exiting at the Shaw Conference Centre. The line could then cross at a bridge next to the Low Level Bridge, with a bridge over 98 Avenue and a stop at Muttart Conservatory. This line could then go under Connors Hill, gradually climbing and exiting around 92 Street and Connors Road. The line could then go southeast.

(2) A line heading east at 103A Avenue and heading east to Dawson Bridge and heading south at McNally Composite High School.

Edmonton PRT
06-12-2008, 01:04 AM
The area around Shaw and the east bank of Dawson bridge are quite unstable do to past coal mining in those areas.

kkozoriz
06-12-2008, 07:59 AM
I think the best line would branch off north of Churchill, cross the quarters and then cross the river by the Dawson. Then straight south past Bonnie Doon and on to Argyle. Head over to 75th/66th at that point to Mill Wods Town Centre. I wish I was better with Google Maps but this gives you the idea. Line to Sherwood Park wold branch at 101 ave.

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=108343013799410208037.0004497d90e2801ae3779&z=12

ChrisD
06-12-2008, 11:35 AM
My best guesses

NLRT to NAIT $800M - $900M
SLRT to YEG $800M - $1,200M
NLRT past NAIT $1,200M - $1,600M
WLRT along Jasper ave and SPR to WEM $1,600M to $2,100M
SELRT to Millwoods $1,800M to $2,400M

Total cost $6,200,000,000.00 to $7,900,000,000.00

Now just where are we going to get that kind of money?
The lines you referenced will be constructed over the next 20-30 years, not tomorrow. Over time the funding should work. The City just has to be aggressive.

Don't you think that in 20 to 30 years that the costs will rise into the stratosphere?

In 1978 we completed 3 above ground stations and two underground stations at a cost of $9.4M/km. Factoring inflation at 204% inflation (source, Bank of Canada Inflation Calculator) that is $28.7M in 2008 dollars. The SLRT is being built at $90M/km or nearly three times the consumer inflation rate since 1978 or 9 times overall ($9.4M/km in 1978 to $90M/km in 2008

Current estimates for SELRT are $90M to $180M/km ($1B to $2B cost) depending on the outcome of the engineering review.

Considering that with an economic downturn and slower population growth will delay construction of new LRT lines, your 20 to 30 year timespan will probably be a good guess.

If we mirror the past 30 years and apply the same 9 times inflation to the SELRT proposal could cost $800M/km to $1,600M/km or $10B to $20B for the project by 2038
Ha ha ha, no inflation won't increase in 20-30 years :confused:, OF COURSE IT WILL!!! Everything does over time. Fact is, there is no way that all of those lines can be completed in a 10-year time frame. But I believe our administration and council need to devise a strategic plan for the delivery and funding of these routes over the next number of years.

kubchaser
06-12-2008, 12:29 PM
Let's not forget that there are multiple ways LRT system can generate various income sources for the years to come to help with the expenses of building and maintaining. LRT is potentially the city's biggest investment for long-term financial growth. And the cost of NOT building a more funcational LRT is far greater than trying to saving money on other infrastructure.

Our current LRT covers very limited major centres. The end result is less than optimal income generated from fares and extremely "poor" advertising fees. Have you ever looked at the ads on the train? They are hardly filled with advertisings.. poor layouts.. not enough light.. and are mostly filled with college and career centre ads (go figure who are the ones using LRT the most).

I have been to many subways and skytrains, and yet have I ever seen one with such a poor advertising layout and design. Our LRT has potential; but companies won't see the benefit of paying to advertise when the majority of LRT users are students. This is attributed to the poor planning of LRT from the past. I came from an asian country and the kind of ads I see on the subway range from cosmetics to financial investments. Now those companies would pay top dollars to attract new customers!

Besides fares and advertising, a diversified LRT station can further generate rental income from small businesses (ie. Max, Tim Horton Express, coffee shops etc). Most of our stations barely offer any service. Why? Because the number of users are not enough to attract small businesses! I would set up a Max in a LRT station if I am guaranteed to have thousands of foot passengers a day!

To maximize LRT's revenue potential the following needs to happen:

1) LRT extends all the way to WEM
2) LRT reaches Millwoods (best goes through Bonnie Doon)
3) further north extension from NAIT to Northgate Centre
4) shopping centre and retail spaces built around the station

Imagine the number of people who will use LRT on a regular basis if LRT reaches to areas where they are POPULATED. Do not try to re-create demand. Fill the demand from these major centres (WEM, Millwoods, Bonnie Doon, North Gate etc).

Have you ever visited WEM on weekends and during holiday seasons?? Now that's a huge revenue potential for the city!

Every new 1,000 people use LRT means:
$2.5 x 2 (roundtrip) x 20 (working days) = 100,000 monthly cash income
plus potential advertising revenue = can run anywhere from thousands to tens of thousands a month!
plus potential rental revenue

Every new 10,000 people use LRT will generate 1,000,000 monthly income and even more advertising revenue per month plus rental income!

*When LRT becomes an irreplacable mass transportation in the city, then fewer buses are needed to be on the road: less maintenance cost, less fuel, less traffic, less wages paid on drivers, and more enivornmental friendly in the long-run.

Right now 2 billion seems like a huge number for Millwood LRT, but the cost will only rise in the years to come. Labour and inflation cost will not come down anyway!

The way I see it, THE SOONER THE BETTER. It's like investing in real estate. You wish you had invested 10-20 years ago!! *LOL* If we only look at cost, it sure looks expensive to build. But what about the other side of the coin??? revenue for years to come??? The city is being very short-sighted in my opinion. Save pennies to lose hundreds.

Just my thought..

Tommy

Solaris
13-12-2008, 04:32 PM
why not just run a new line from century park along 23rd to mwtc. you can stop at the research park and sec..this would be much more cost effective

richardW
13-12-2008, 05:13 PM
^ Imagine how long that route would take to get from the TC to lets say downtown or rexall. would be one helluva long ride. not very fair to millwoods at all.

Sonic Death Monkey
13-12-2008, 05:24 PM
^ Plus what about service to the neighborhoods in-between such as Bonnie Doon and Strathearn (which has a big infill development coming up)?

RTA
13-12-2008, 06:16 PM
^ Bingo. "Spur" lines like that only increase the travel time to city centre (and anywhere else useful) more, especially as they expand further outward from the "turning point" back onto the mainline. LRT lines should be as direct as possible and continue in the direction that development is expected to occur.

The_Cat
13-12-2008, 10:21 PM
A line from Century Park to Mill Woods would be dead after 6:00 p.m. About the only riders might be students (to the U of A), or International Airport passengers if the line is ever extended that far. Even though it would likely be less expensive than a line from downtown, this should only be considered once the Downtown-Mill Woods line is completed, and as a lower priority.

Perhaps the following bus routes should be considered for Mill Woods (once SLRT is complete):

(1) Century Park Station to Mill Woods Town Centre (Express).

(2) Southgate to Mill Woods (91 Street, 66 Street, and possibly 50 Street routes).

(3) A bus from South Campus to Millgate Station (via Argyll Road/63 Avenue/61 Avenue).

Solaris
14-12-2008, 10:53 AM
A line from Century Park to Mill Woods would be dead after 6:00 p.m. About the only riders might be students (to the U of A), or International Airport passengers if the line is ever extended that far. Even though it would likely be less expensive than a line from downtown, this should only be considered once the Downtown-Mill Woods line is completed, and as a lower priority.

Perhaps the following bus routes should be considered for Mill Woods (once SLRT is complete):

(1) Century Park Station to Mill Woods Town Centre (Express).

(2) Southgate to Mill Woods (91 Street, 66 Street, and possibly 50 Street routes).

(3) A bus from South Campus to Millgate Station (via Argyll Road/63 Avenue/61 Avenue).


that sounds great maybe (#1) with stops at sec, and something from century park to wem would be great.

MylesC
14-12-2008, 09:16 PM
No shocker that it would be expensive. The Millwoods/SE line is probably the most tricky line to deal with in terms of property acquisition since it will be heading through some very dense areas of the inner city.

I wonder if 91st would be considered as a route down - I wonder this since it's a very wide right of way that could easily handle an LRT route as is.

As for the cost - I think the cost is well worth it in order to create the central spine of a transit system. It would eliminate a lot of wasteful crosstown routes that stop every block, for instance.

danimalrex
15-12-2008, 09:20 AM
I've always thought 91st was perfectly laid out for future LRT, but with the current south extension going down to Century, there would only be 20 blocks of separation between the two lines. Calgary Trail does present a defined separation between the two parts of the city though.

66th Street is set up well too, having a large central median and passing close by both the Grey Nuns and Millwoods Town Center. Maybe cross it over towards 50th Street (looking towards extension to Beaumont) somewhere north of the mall so that it hooks up with the existing transit terminal (east side of the mall), and turn all of that unused land around the mall into park and ride). Jog it over to 83rd Street north of the Whitemud as it heads north (catching Bonnydoon Mall), and maybe continue north to Connors road before turning west into downtown. This crossing would seem to make sense as the river crossing at Connors could also support an east leg headed out from Downtown to Sherwood Park.

moahunter
15-12-2008, 12:43 PM
I've always thought 91st was perfectly laid out for future LRT, but with the current south extension going down to Century, there would only be 20 blocks of separation between the two lines.
Some routes are just too well suited to LRT to not get it at some point. 87 Avenue on the West End is the same, it is a no-brainer, almost designed for LRT. I don't think the 20 blocks of spearation would be a problem at all - it is probably about right, I find I can walk about 10 blocks, but I'm an exception, many won't walk even this far.

richardW
15-12-2008, 12:59 PM
the problem with 91st is that its only got residential on one side really, not very high dense residential either. 66st would be perfect to hit 2 highschools a hospital and the TC.

highlander
15-12-2008, 08:59 PM
the problem with 91st is that its only got residential on one side really, not very high dense residential either. 66st would be perfect to hit 2 highschools a hospital and the TC.

There's nothing wrong with serving non- residential areas with LRT. As it stands, the commercial areas in the area are some of the densest in edmonton. It really doesn't matter where the line is as long as the stations are at the major avenues so that bus transfers are easy. From what I understand, a 91st route would cut to the heart of Millwoods along 28ave anyway.

highlander
15-12-2008, 09:05 PM
I've always thought 91st was perfectly laid out for future LRT, but with the current south extension going down to Century, there would only be 20 blocks of separation between the two lines.
Some routes are just too well suited to LRT to not get it at some point. 87 Avenue on the West End is the same, it is a no-brainer, almost designed for LRT. I don't think the 20 blocks of spearation would be a problem at all - it is probably about right, I find I can walk about 10 blocks, but I'm an exception, many won't walk even this far.

I agree. There would be little conflict between the two lines, and I wouldn't doubt that a 91St line would be significantly less expensive than a line further east, if done right.

Solaris
15-12-2008, 09:31 PM
I've always thought 91st was perfectly laid out for future LRT, but with the current south extension going down to Century, there would only be 20 blocks of separation between the two lines.
Some routes are just too well suited to LRT to not get it at some point. 87 Avenue on the West End is the same, it is a no-brainer, almost designed for LRT. I don't think the 20 blocks of spearation would be a problem at all - it is probably about right, I find I can walk about 10 blocks, but I'm an exception, many won't walk even this far.

I agree. There would be little conflict between the two lines, and I wouldn't doubt that a 91St line would be significantly less expensive than a line further east, if done right.

I think walking depends on the season. I walk alot in the summer getting of the bus well ahead of my stop. I can walk 10 + blocks. Would never consider that in -30+ weather though. That is pretty inhuman weather....

highlander
15-12-2008, 09:45 PM
I've always thought 91st was perfectly laid out for future LRT, but with the current south extension going down to Century, there would only be 20 blocks of separation between the two lines.
Some routes are just too well suited to LRT to not get it at some point. 87 Avenue on the West End is the same, it is a no-brainer, almost designed for LRT. I don't think the 20 blocks of spearation would be a problem at all - it is probably about right, I find I can walk about 10 blocks, but I'm an exception, many won't walk even this far.

I agree. There would be little conflict between the two lines, and I wouldn't doubt that a 91St line would be significantly less expensive than a line further east, if done right.



I think walking depends on the season. I walk alot in the summer getting of the bus well ahead of my stop. I can walk 10 + blocks. Would never consider that in -30+ weather though. That is pretty inhuman weather....

While the lines might be only 20 blocks apart, the stations would surely be more distant. the only places where stations could line up is 51ave with southgate, and at whyte ave where density merits it. Otherwise, the southenmost station actually on 91st would likely be at 34 ave, which was skipped by SLRT for some reason, another might be at argyle.

danimalrex
16-12-2008, 09:07 AM
I hadn't thought about swinging east from 91st into Millwoods along 28th Ave. It's definately wide enough to accomidate 4 lanes of traffic plus an LRT line, and would pass directly in front of the Millwoods Rec Center. That routing has pretty good potential too.

richardW
16-12-2008, 04:37 PM
^ with a route like that would there be a stop at Millwoods TC and the reccentre/highshools or would that be too close together

Solaris
24-12-2008, 05:15 PM
mwtc>28th ave (rec centers and gmcc) > north to bonniedoon > 82nd ave > old cpr tracks north to High level bridge> over the top> stop above ground on top on grandin LRT >under ground west along jasper stop at 112 and 124 > under 102ave come above ground at 142 st station> south 142st > 87th ave stop at meadowlark TC > wem> lewis estates (c/w park and ride).

ok this kind of route just occured to me. there may need to be rough adjustments. Think it might work though???????:smt044

moahunter
24-12-2008, 05:29 PM
Nope - people in Millwoods most need to get downtown (NAIT may be an important connection for Millwoods too), not to the Legilsature and WEM. Not to mention is that the high level is out of bounds per past experience (and even now - reserved for HST).

Solaris
24-12-2008, 10:26 PM
Nope - people in Millwoods most need to get downtown (NAIT may be an important connection for Millwoods too), not to the Legilsature and WEM. Not to mention is that the high level is out of bounds per past experience (and even now - reserved for HST).

they would just need to transfer @ grandin then go where ever. I am sure the high level can be retro fitted to adapt to lrt traffic. lets face it $2b is just never going to happen, we have to adjust expectations it is not reasonable to assume that every line will terminate at churchill. They dont even do this in Toronto (if you come in on the bloor line, you need to transfer to the young line to go further into downtown). further they also run some spur lines like in the case of the scarborough lrt.

moahunter
25-12-2008, 09:39 AM
they would just need to transfer @ grandin then go where ever. I am sure the high level can be retro fitted to adapt to lrt traffic. lets face it $2b is just never going to happen,
Let's face it, the high level was suitable for LRT and it didn't happen. It couldn't happen then, and it won't happen now, it is set aside for HSR. As to $2 billion, the more track, and the more corners, and the busier road (e.g. around Whyte), then the more expensive it is going to be. I don't think the "bridge" is the big cost with Millwoods LRT. And no, it doesn't have to link at churchill (although that would be ideal - it could join the existing tunnel just south of it) - it could potentially not link at all and go a little north, or start a new station in the Quarters.

highlander
25-12-2008, 09:42 PM
There's no good reason that the high level can't be used for LRT. The current owners are different and would have nothing to gain but much to lose by refusing the city access for LRT. If the city decides that a high level is desirable (it is) and really want it, the top of that bridge is a really low-cost bone to for the province to toss, especially if they can take it back or share the track (they could) when (if) they decide to actually build HSR.

On the other hand, any high level route will have to be more direct to millwoods than solaris' proposal if it is to get anysort of ridership. Cutting bonneydoon out of the route and going simply 28-C.P.ROW-Grandin would be much more acceptable to millwoodians.

We really do need to look at travel time for any millwoods LRT we propose, because I suspect that the current high transit use stats for millwoods are reflective no of some strangely higher desire of millwooders to use transit, or some demographic characteristic of the area but simply reflects that millwoods already has decent bus service to downtown. In this case especially, if we cant do as well as the currently popular bus, maybe we should just add a little more bus priority and be done with it.

DanC
25-12-2008, 10:12 PM
SE is not just to serve Millwoods. There are alot of neighborhoods and jobs in between.

highlander
25-12-2008, 11:12 PM
SE is not just to serve Millwoods. There are alot of neighborhoods and jobs in between.

I thought the thread title was LRT to Millwoods?

Whatever, The point is that a roundabout route to millwoods has no point.

What we have is two totally sepatrate issues:

1) Rapid transit to Millwoods, and
2) Better transit for the inner South side.

We can build a $2B rapid LRT line from downtown to Millwoods to downtown via BonneyDoon.

Or we can build a Much less expensive LRT line from grandin to Millwoods via the high level and the CP rows. It's just as good for millwoods>university or Millwoods>govt district, but slightly worse for Millwoods>Financial Core, and no use at all for folks from east of mill creek, but it connects whyte ave right at the busy part, and we still have $1B+ left over to improve transit for the near SE, possibly including multiple streetcar/tram light rail lines, BRT, Trolley bus or whatever else tickles your fancy.

DanC
26-12-2008, 09:26 AM
SE is not just to serve Millwoods. There are alot of neighborhoods and jobs in between.

I thought the thread title was LRT to Millwoods?

Whatever, The point is that a roundabout route to millwoods has no point.

What we have is two totally sepatrate issues:

1) Rapid transit to Millwoods, and
2) Better transit for the inner South side.

We can build a $2B rapid LRT line from downtown to Millwoods to downtown via BonneyDoon.

Or we can build a Much less expensive LRT line from grandin to Millwoods via the high level and the CP rows. It's just as good for millwoods>university or Millwoods>govt district, but slightly worse for Millwoods>Financial Core, and no use at all for folks from east of mill creek, but it connects whyte ave right at the busy part, and we still have $1B+ left over to improve transit for the near SE, possibly including multiple streetcar/tram light rail lines, BRT, Trolley bus or whatever else tickles your fancy.
Are you just guessing that its going to be 1B+ dollars cheaper? I don't know where that number came from or how you got to it.
You seem to be glossing over that a large portion of the ROWs are still in use by heavy freight and would have to be purchased by the City...this isn't free land.
With the High Level being designated as part of the HSR route it may also be impossible to use the bridge. If HSR ever happens and the High Level is now an lrt route, we are going to get one stop on the southside and no direct route Downtown. That would work pretty nicely for turning Edmonton into a shuttling point to the Calgary Airport.
You are making a ton of assumptions and I'm sure I could be a lot more creative and come up with lots of interesting counterpoints to your route. Just because you got all excited about it doesn't mean that anything you said will hold water. Facts not conjecture would be a starting point.

Medwards
26-12-2008, 09:27 AM
If we want a less expensive route to millwoods, branch off the LRT from the SLRT at century park. Using the CP ROW makes no sense to me - having two LRT lines 10 blocks apart... lol

RTA
26-12-2008, 10:10 AM
^ Except that branching off the current SLRT line to go to Millwoods would hardly be competitive enough with buses or private vehicles to be worthwhile. Basically the travel time for such a line to get to anywhere of interest (UofA, Downtown, etc.) would always include a long ride just to get to the current SLRT line as well as the length of that line, and would increase disproprotionately as the line is extended in any direction. Plus it misses significant mature neighborhoods that should have LRT service, and would rightfully cry foul if they were bypassed entirely on the way to Millwoods.

highlander
26-12-2008, 10:14 AM
SE is not just to serve Millwoods. There are alot of neighborhoods and jobs in between.

I thought the thread title was LRT to Millwoods?

Whatever, The point is that a roundabout route to millwoods has no point.

What we have is two totally sepatrate issues:

1) Rapid transit to Millwoods, and
2) Better transit for the inner South side.

We can build a $2B rapid LRT line from downtown to Millwoods to downtown via BonneyDoon.

Or we can build a Much less expensive LRT line from grandin to Millwoods via the high level and the CP rows. It's just as good for millwoods>university or Millwoods>govt district, but slightly worse for Millwoods>Financial Core, and no use at all for folks from east of mill creek, but it connects whyte ave right at the busy part, and we still have $1B+ left over to improve transit for the near SE, possibly including multiple streetcar/tram light rail lines, BRT, Trolley bus or whatever else tickles your fancy.
Are you just guessing that its going to be 1B+ dollars cheaper? I don't know where that number came from or how you got to it.
You seem to be glossing over that a large portion of the ROWs are still in use by heavy freight and would have to be purchased by the City...this isn't free land.
With the High Level being designated as part of the HSR route it may also be impossible to use the bridge. If HSR ever happens and the High Level is now an lrt route, we are going to get one stop on the southside and no direct route Downtown. That would work pretty nicely for turning Edmonton into a shuttling point to the Calgary Airport.
You are making a ton of assumptions and I'm sure I could be a lot more creative and come up with lots of interesting counterpoints to your route. Just because you got all excited about it doesn't mean that anything you said will hold water. Facts not conjecture would be a starting point.

Everything on theis thread is conjecture, including your claims that LRT and HSR couldn't share tracks. I think that if you are search how things are done in countries that actually have HSR you might find that your conjecture is more far out than mine. HSR often shares track in urban areas with lesser rail. Which doesn't really matter, since we won't have viable HSR in my lifetime.

As for the cost, I'm just guessing, but so is the city at this point. I'm going on the fact that the high level bridge route avoids a new bridge (or controversial conversion of an existing vehicular bridge), avoids a new tunnel into downtown, avoids building rapid transit on residential streets South of BonneyDoon, uses 28 ave which I've read is LRT ready, and the whole ROW alrady exists, there are no nimbys in industrial areas, a completely separate line from the existing LRT allows for low floor service (saving big $$$ on stations) and the whole route to whyte ave is as close to free as you'll ever get.

I admit that I don't know how things would work out with CP, but if things go half as well as they did with CN on the NE line then we'll be laughing.

moahunter
26-12-2008, 02:32 PM
If we want a less expensive route to millwoods, branch off the LRT from the SLRT at century park. Using the CP ROW makes no sense to me - having two LRT lines 10 blocks apart... lol
I've often thought that is a possible option as well, I don't think it would be too bad time wise, but a direct route would be better.

I don't think high level makes any sense whatsoever for LRT. Last time I looked, the high level was right next to a dedicated LRT bridge - it would make more sense to run another train down that one, rather than modify a bridge that will be used for HST one day.

highlander
28-12-2008, 01:34 PM
If we want a less expensive route to millwoods, branch off the LRT from the SLRT at century park. Using the CP ROW makes no sense to me - having two LRT lines 10 blocks apart... lol
I've often thought that is a possible option as well, I don't think it would be too bad time wise, but a direct route would be better.

I don't think high level makes any sense whatsoever for LRT. Last time I looked, the high level was right next to a dedicated LRT bridge - it would make more sense to run another train down that one, rather than modify a bridge that will be used for HST one day.

The necessary 'modification' to the High Level Bridge is essentially just adding tracks. Using the existing bridge means being tied to the existing line to south of health sciences, or building an new, massively expensive tunneled approach.

Since the WLRT may be converging from the west at health sciences there won't be much excess capacity on the bridge anyway, so the point is moot.

moahunter
28-12-2008, 01:55 PM
Since the WLRT may be converging from the west at health sciences there won't be much excess capacity on the bridge anyway, so the point is moot.
I actually think there is a ton of capacity left on the line, it is rare to see LRT trains close together. Capacity is a red hering - it's the same issue whether the connection is at Health Sciences, or at Grandin. Anyway, I don't think Millwoods LRT is going this way, while some would like LRT at Whyte avenue, I personally am not in favour of it, I'd rather we focus on connecting the downtown core to the corners of the city first.

highlander
28-12-2008, 02:17 PM
Trains currently travel 6 minutes apart, with an average of 3.5 cars each. the word is that once the SLRT is open, all the new cars are commissioned and the old ones rehabbed we will have 5 minute service with all 4 car trains. If we double traffic by adding a full N and west legs then we have 2.5 minute service, which is Great, but if we try to add another then we have 100s frequency, which from all that I've read requires ATC (automatic train control) to achieve, with that 5th car left for growth that will likely take place long before we build that final line, and we can't use ATC anyways, because of our grade crossings, so yes, there is a capacity issue.

Swizzlerz
28-12-2008, 07:00 PM
i don't understand how we could ever have a capacity issue... were only 750 000 pple here. look at Calgary do they have a capacity issue there over 1 000 000.. and plan to have 4 legs connecting in there downtown main line of there lrt...

Medwards
28-12-2008, 07:41 PM
SE LRT in Calgary likely wont connect into the existing LRT system, in fact, I've heard they may even use low floor LRT for that line, if ever built.

Their existing system will have 4 legs, just like we will have 4 legs (with their WLRT), but any legs after that - timing really becomes a big issue.

The_Cat
28-12-2008, 07:57 PM
I think the challenge could come if three lines come in from Mill Woods, NE and NAIT to downtown. LRT grade-level crossings can become congested during peak hours (particularly if the trains are crossing from different directions), and nearly impossible if there is more than one line.

highlander
28-12-2008, 09:33 PM
i don't understand how we could ever have a capacity issue... were only 750 000 pple here. look at Calgary do they have a capacity issue there over 1 000 000.. and plan to have 4 legs connecting in there downtown main line of there lrt...

In addition to other's comments, we have 1,000,000 metro too, and we're considering lines that go beyond our borders to St Albert or Sherwood Park. Calgary also already has horrible capacity problems, including pass-up becoming extremely common, and forcing commuters to park farther out or ride in the reverse direction just to get a spot on a train.

RTA
28-12-2008, 11:59 PM
Another advantage we have over Calgary is that our stations are capable of handling 5-car consists with only minor amounts of construction (primarily at Health Sci). Calgary is pretty much stuck at 3-car consists on the existing lines.

lightrail
29-12-2008, 02:08 AM
Trains currently travel 6 minutes apart, with an average of 3.5 cars each. the word is that once the SLRT is open, all the new cars are commissioned and the old ones rehabbed we will have 5 minute service with all 4 car trains. If we double traffic by adding a full N and west legs then we have 2.5 minute service, which is Great, but if we try to add another then we have 100s frequency, which from all that I've read requires ATC (automatic train control) to achieve, with that 5th car left for growth that will likely take place long before we build that final line, and we can't use ATC anyways, because of our grade crossings, so yes, there is a capacity issue.

You don't need ATC for 90 second headways - London Underground operates 40 trains an hour on some lines and these trains are driver operated. You do need new signalling to allow trains to run closer together and you need approach signals into stations to safely draw trains up close to an occupied platform.

moahunter
29-12-2008, 08:02 AM
I agree - the comments that Edmonton's tunnel is going to become too crowded if there are 4 or 5 lines feeding into it is laughable. A quick trip to London will illustrate this to anyone, at rush hour on the tube, the trains are almost constant, one after another, in tiny old deep stations nowhere near as large or comfortable as ours. It's an exciting place to be - lots of people, lots of energy - very different from our LRT. We have a long long way to go before we get anything close to that, at least another 50 years of growth I am guessing. And if it ever did become an issue, it would be a very good one, because there would be plenty of money being made to build a new tunnel at that time. As capacity increases - issues like at grade crossings can be addressed, there is no point in panicking about it now though when our tunnel is totally deserted most of the time, or building a mythical perfect system for a city of 2 million when we are a long way from that.

sundance
29-12-2008, 10:47 AM
Actually RTA the stations can at most handle 4 cars, this is because of some of the above ground stations the platforms are built for 4 cars. It wouldn't cost too much to expand them, but right now its not necessary.

I can't remember if the platforms in the underground stations are long enough for 5 cars but certainly the "hole" is large enough to expand them for a 5 car consist as well.

Downtown is where you would have trouble with continual trains. On the perimeters of the city the frequency isn't too bad, currently I suspect the worst problem area will be Whyte (82nd? University Blvd?) just south of the Health Science Station. It will probably be okay with just the spur to Century Park. But I guess time (or perhaps traffic simulations) will tell.

But with the current economic downturn starting to show up here, now is the time to finish up detailed plans, sink a 20 year bond and start building either this spring or by next spring to take advantage of more afforable labor and better priced bids. For example Summer 2007 City of Edmonton wanted to repave Whitemud, if my memory is right 2 bids came in both were hugely overpriced so the city turned down both, now when the city posts contracts more bids come in that are more moderately priced. The city can take advantage of the economics and create jobs when they are needed which could happen in the near future here.

So in the end the Millwoods line may come in at 1.5 billion or maybe less, one can hope.

Medwards
29-12-2008, 11:50 AM
All stations except for Health sciences (and the rest of the SLRT stations) can handle 5 cars.

moahunter
29-12-2008, 01:46 PM
All stations except for Health sciences (and the rest of the SLRT stations) can handle 5 cars.
I think if any line is going to be busy and require 5 cars it will be the south line - well, I guess at least if its expanded, maybe labour will be cheaper with a downturn, than when it was built.

Medwards
29-12-2008, 01:52 PM
I should add in that the stations were designed to be easily expanded to 5 car platform later...

though I'm still not sure why we didn't just build them to full capacity right from the get go

Sonic Death Monkey
19-02-2009, 10:27 PM
Now that the Millwoods LRT line is being discussed again, let's throw some route ideas out there.

The biggest concern, to me, is the river valley crossing. One way to do it:
- start from Churchill station
- run underground south to the Shaw Conference Centre.
- Shaw Station would serve the conference, McKinney Park and the Edmonton Queen
- river crossing along with pedestrian/bath path underneath
- run it up Connors Hill
- possible Connors Hill station for area residents plus the Folk Fest
- continue towards Bonnie Doon and then to Millwoods.

Alternative: put 1 LRT station across the river from the Shaw, which can then serve the conference centre, McKinney Park (both accessible via pedestrian path on LRT bridge), Edmonton Queen, Muttart, the ski hill and the folk fest. But with the clusterf&&& of roads and bridges there (98 Ave, Connors Hill, Scona Road), I don't know how best to lay the route or place the station.

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j110/smaximus/seLRTcrossing.jpg

Let's see your plans?


(MOD EDIT - placed these historic reference threads here)

Mill Woods LRT proposal goes to council
http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=6436

The Legend of Millwoods LRT promise
http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=5743

LRT to Millwoods
http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=4584

richardW
19-02-2009, 10:38 PM
how about:

1. Branch off at Stadium station
2. Head south and cross the river on a new bridge just clipping the south part of that golf course
3. 84st -> 98ave -> connors road-> whyte(82ave) -> 75st -> 66st -> 28ave(lotsa room here) -> Millwoods TC

moahunter
19-02-2009, 10:43 PM
As I have posted on another thread - I like the idea of simply branching off the current SLRT line using 23 avenue or similar. This would save having the line go through a lot of low density industrial land. It would link Millwoods to UofA, evenutally Leduc/Nisku, and be more than fast enough. This is a line that could be built very quickly and cost effectivley (if it is not quick and cost effective, I think Millwoods will be waiting forever, just like the West End is forced to). A future east line could then be built to Sherwood park, servicing neighborhoods like Capilano. One day in the future, Millwoods LRT could even loop back to that line.

bicycles
19-02-2009, 10:56 PM
I'd like to see the line branch off from Health Sciences station, go east down 81st/83rd ave above ground to Bonnie Doon, down 75 st to Argyll Road, west along Argyll area, then south down 91st st, then east on 23 ave or 34 ave, then south down 50th maybe into Mill Woods.

Theres that industrial area between 63 ave and Whitemud which is about 20 blocks, but if you have a station at Bonnie Doon, around 75th st and Argyll, around 63rd ave and 91st st, and then one more after the Whitemud on 91st st (park and ride?), the spacing between stations is still less then some of the spacing on the slrt line.

something like this (the red line, which alternatively goes all the way to WEM): http://www.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&oe=UTF8&msa=0&msid=106738613224964610433.0004629c45e0e8c130d22

lightrail
20-02-2009, 12:08 AM
Whie I think the most economical is to go along 23rd avenue from Century Park, the more I think about it, the more I like this concept. It's all above ground - no new tunnels. Spliting the line in the existing tunnel would be cost prohibitive. Branch from between Churchill and Central is a non-starter. The junction box would be very expensive and disruptive, plus I doubt there's room or soil stability to build a portal in the river bank there.

So here's my suggestion - this serves new parts of downtown and creates an interchange station at Grandin (existing below ground, the new on the surface). The junction at 105 Street could be the opposite to what I've shown so trains from the North Line could run onto the SE line. As shown, the trains would run into the downtown tunnel creating an unusual service pattern (though a conneciton could be made to the NE line on the old railway alignment too). The 105 Avenue line could be extended to the west end (which is the alignment I think Edmonton will end up going with) and this routing serves Old Scona. The line would continue south to Millwoods from Old Scona.

http://members.shaw.ca/david.marlor/selrt.jpg

In my imagination, I see a surface line running along 105 Avenue, then down the centre of 109 Street - streetcar style - on a dedicated right-of-way. Then south of Jasper, switch over to the CPR alignment and over the top deck of the High Level Bridge into Old Scona. At Old Scona, the station would be a replica of the original CPR Railway Station, now serving LRT (maybe incorporate the old station building). The Station just south of the HLB would provide a short-cut for students and staff going to the University - it is in walking distance.

The_Cat
20-02-2009, 12:19 AM
I think if we think of Multi-Use Trails (as a part of the LRT lines), would it be wise to have an overhead bridge going through Mill Creek like the Menzies bridge from Grandin to University Station? Like SDM's idea, the line could go SE under SunLife/ATB, meet up with SCC (possibly at the same level as Hall A, B, C), continue above Grierson Hill, North Saskatchewan River, over the east part of the James MacDonald overpass, meeting up with the Mill Creek bike trail.

The line could then turn east at around 84/86 Avenue with a stop at Campus St. Jean, and head east along 83 Avenue to Bonnie Doon Mall, and head south at 83 Street, going underground around Argyll Road (a stop at that location), resurfacing at W. P. Wagner School, and meeting up at 75 Street (stop at Roper Road), and continuing southeast along 66 Street, terminating at Mill Woods Town Centre.

I realize that the Mill Creek route would not be popular, but the above ground route would mean a minimum of land expropriation, and minimal interference with the environment.

sbrussell
20-02-2009, 08:08 AM
I'm no expert, but it seems using the the High Level bridge and the existing railway line would be the most cost-effective way to cross the river, plus it would give LRT riders easy access to Whyte Ave.

From Whyte, I'm not sure which would be the best way to Millwoods, as you have the natural barrier of Mill Creek ravine to worry about.

Chmilz
20-02-2009, 10:34 AM
I like the idea of extending the line from Century Park east on 23ave. That way Millwoods riders won't need to make a big trip all the way downtown and change trains to get to UofA. One nice, neat, tidy line, with a stop at Millwoods Town Centre.

Admin
20-02-2009, 10:46 AM
Thank you sundance. I will look to see how best to merge these, if it is possible at all without making it hard to read.

Admin
20-02-2009, 10:52 AM
I will lock this thread as it is being discussed here now (http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum/showthread.php?p=169732#post169732).

Admin
20-02-2009, 10:52 AM
Locking this thread. The new discussion is over here. (http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum/showthread.php?p=169732#post169732)

Admin
20-02-2009, 10:53 AM
Locking this thread. Go here for more discussion. (http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum/showthread.php?p=169732#post169732)

Admin
20-02-2009, 10:54 AM
OK, I ended up closing the threads. I will try to make this a mega seLRT to Millwoods thread.

I will also post sundance's suggestions as historic reading threads (embedded into the original post) for reference.

Admin
20-02-2009, 10:59 AM
Journal Article for discussion...


Mill Woods LRT proposal goes to council

Susan Ruttan, edmontonjournal.com
Published: 2:48 pm
EDMONTON - City council will be asked to spend $1.5 million to start planning yet another LRT line, this one from downtown to Mill Woods.

A report going to council's transportation and public works committee next week proposes hiring a consultant to start planning a Mill Woods light-rail transit line.

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=290c3231-c40c-4dd4-b69e-ec76d51f9711&k=67405

Edmontonfan
20-02-2009, 11:06 AM
As a long term resident of Mill Woods I also like the 23rd Ave alignment, it's quick, relatively easy and as mentioned before a north bound line could be constructed in conjunction with Sherwood Park line (if that ever happens).

The line could start somewhere around 17th Street and there would be ample space for a park and ride location.

etownboarder
20-02-2009, 11:07 AM
I like the idea of extending the line from Century Park east on 23ave. That way Millwoods riders won't need to make a big trip all the way downtown and change trains to get to UofA. One nice, neat, tidy line, with a stop at Millwoods Town Centre.

No thanks... By doing that, you're missing the entire southeast corner of the city except Millwoods. What about all the people in between downtown and Millwoods TC?

raz0469
20-02-2009, 12:14 PM
A 23rd avenue line is a terrible idea. Piling the entire south and southeast ridership on to a single line THROUGH the University? That's an absolute disaster waiting to happen. And route times from the SE would be horrendous, it would have little advantage over current bus service. And the amount of appropriation required would be massive.

It's not easy, it's not cheap, and it's not effective.

etownboarder
20-02-2009, 12:21 PM
I agree with you raz... it's a terrible idea. Maybe once we have legs of LRT going to all corner of the city, then you can look at building a ring around the outside, but not before the rest of the system if finished... so maybe 60 years from now? Wow I'm going to be old by then.

kkozoriz
20-02-2009, 12:28 PM
A quick and dirty idea for the route. Branch off north of Churchill. Station in The Quarters before crossing by the Dawson Bridge. Station at 101 ave with future branch splitting off to Sherwood Park. South to Bonnie Doon. Over Argyle to 75th st and on to Mill Woods TC.

http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/603/selrtsl9.th.jpg (http://img186.imageshack.us/my.php?image=selrtsl9.jpg)

RichardS
20-02-2009, 12:28 PM
Out of all the proposals so far, I think it is a toss up between lightrail and SDM. SDM has points for picking a route that does not necessarily clog any existing lines and goes through more populated areas, lightrail gets points for utilizing existing infrastructure and aligning more closely with the original proposals of the late 1960's.

In a $$$ argument, I think lightrail's has more potential overall - no new bridge. However, CP would have to vacate so that redevelopment could occur.

highlander
20-02-2009, 02:44 PM
I like Lightrail's proposal too, althought I'm not sold on the idea of connecting into a loop. I've mentioned before that I don't think we should overload the tunnel and having three or even four lines on the north end certainly does that, especially if you consider ridership growth from now until we actually build all of these.

From whyte ave I'd use the CP ROW, 91st and 28 ave into millwoods. On the other end, if it needs to continue north from grandin then I'd like to take it to St ALbert via railtown park, a Grant MacEwan Station, 104ave, a turn and station a molson/crosstown and then up the 121st and 142 rail ROWs.

If we expect to build more than 6 legs, including in the far off future, then a new, short N-S tunnel throught downtown makes sense as the way to bring MWLRT and another 3 legs through downtown. I don't know it the riverbank at that point is well suited, but 101st would be the first choice, it the real centre of downtown and it would add another level to Central station and make it worthy of the name. If that doesn't work, then I'd prefer 103st and Bay over Churchill. Churchill square may be the civic and arts heart of our city, but the employment cored are further west.

Sonic Death Monkey
20-02-2009, 02:45 PM
of course, a route over the High Level Bridge works if there's enough room to accommodate that and HSR, or if HSR dies.

ike9126
20-02-2009, 04:27 PM
Are these proposals considering creating a completely seperate line with no shared track, or a system similar to the NAIT lrt?

lightrail
20-02-2009, 04:30 PM
I like Lightrail's proposal too, althought I'm not sold on the idea of connecting into a loop. I've mentioned before that I don't think we should overload the tunnel and having three or even four lines on the north end certainly does that, especially if you consider ridership growth from now until we actually build all of these.



I agree with you here. I suggested one option would be to connect to the North line so trains from NAIT could run to SE line. Or a new link east along the old rail line to join the NE line and allow trains from, say, Coliseum to run onto the SE line.

Edmcowboy11
20-02-2009, 04:39 PM
On one side if they build a SELRT crossing the high level you can now potentially have a 2 level station at Grandin, a station at around 109th at the top of the hill just after getting off the high level, then a station at 103rd and Whyte. Now the only question is, do you bring the line to Bonnie Doon and then head south or do you head south around the millcreek ravine or do you head south via 102st or so and take advantage of the possible available land that way?

On the other hand I really like the idea of branching off of Churchill, making the city town square also the LRT hub. Go from Churchill station to the Quarters station, then next cross the river valley and a station somewhere just after crossing the river. Next Bonnie Doon station and continue to Argyll, etc...

Either of these possibilities has it's merrit although I think a the second option from Churchill would be nice because then maybe you could have 2 main lines in the city. Clareview to Century Park and NAIT to Millwoods Town Center. Both of these lines intersecting at Churchill Station.

sundance
20-02-2009, 04:51 PM
Actually Sonic a HSR would be travelling fairly slow as this would be near the station and they weigh sufficiently more than a LRT. The LRTs can accelerate and declerate much quicker so in reality it would be the HSR slowing down the LRT not the other way around, they could use common tracks for the bridge and split off at the north end to the station, and at the south end assumably to the Old Strathcona area. When I was on the Eurostar it would take about 2-3 miles to catch up with a commuter train when they both left at the same time.

If we do get a sufficient population base the HSR frequency probably wouldn't be more then around 1 train per hour plenty of time to get quite a few LRT trains between.

The electrical supply is a different thing originally the U2 and SD160 LRTs used 600V DC for Edmonton. TGVs primarily use 25kV AC at 50Hz, the Japanese Shinkansen primarily use 25kV AC as well but at 60Hz

This is not an insurmountable obstacle as quite a few varients of both use multiple voltages, the original Eurostar used 25kV AC from the catanery in France but 600V AC from a 3rd rail on the older lines in England as well the Thalys TGVs can run under 25Kv 50Hz, 15kV 16.7 Hz, 4kV DC, and 1500V DC as well the Oresund railway from Denmark to Sweden runs at 15kV 16 2/3 Hz and 25Kv 50Hz. So if you handle the electrical system right LRT and HSR could both travel on the same tracks as most systems use standard gauge track

danimalrex
20-02-2009, 05:01 PM
I'm on side with the alignment that kkozoriz drew a few posts back. If you look at that routing, you'll find that the majority of the N/S line follows roads that currently have either parkland, service roads, or medians already in place that could easily accomidate LRT. The only real question marks for me are how to handle the two traffic circles that it would be crossing, and the short stretch immediately south of Bonnydoon Mall where there is no existing service road (about 4 blocks). Yes, there would be a lot of roadwork to do, but those roads are getting to the point where they need work regardless.

My worry with going anywhere near University/Whyte with seLRT is that there is a good chance that the alignment will completely skip residents east of Millcreek Ravine and north of Whyte. An argument could be made that we'll catch them when we do eLRT (!), but I think it's wiser to position seLRT to handle eLRT when that time comes.

Sonic Death Monkey
20-02-2009, 06:54 PM
^^ sundance: my concern is, would the High Level Bridge have enough space for both HSR and LRT? I would assume each would require different types of tracks.

Another reason for the Connors Hill/Bonnie Doon route is for the mega-Strathearn development to be a TOD. In fact, I'll bet the developers had LRT in mind.

highlander
20-02-2009, 08:51 PM
LRT is standard gauge. HSR is standard gauge, unles they go maglev. the streetcar is standard gauge.

There's room up there for 3 tracks, and the weight capacity was at least there when it was built, as it handled heavy freight trains although I can't say what 100 years of rusting would do.

The little bridge just north of the high level is only one track, but it wouldn't be a big deal to replace and expand. (the streetcars got off the embankment before then, you can still see the ramps that held the old tracks.)

The first difficulty would be the tunnel south of the HLB, which is single track. With LRT only a gauntlet track through there with signal protection might be enough, or it migh be possible to double stack the tunnel. If you throw anything else into the mix then you would have to double track for sure.

The other problem would be the LRT and HSR stations both fitting onto the narrow strip of land between 97ave and 99ave, west of 109st. The whole strip is about 300m by 40m. It's long enough, but it would be a real squeeze to get 4 tracks and 2 platforms in there, so any taxi stand, drop off area, bus bay or ticket booth waiting area would need to be beyond the end of the track, not beside them. Which of course gets very difficult if one or more of the lines continues north.

missmarble
20-02-2009, 10:28 PM
A quick and dirty idea for the route. Branch off north of Churchill. Station in The Quarters before crossing by the Dawson Bridge. Station at 101 ave with future branch splitting off to Sherwood Park. South to Bonnie Doon. Over Argyle to 75th st and on to Mill Woods TC.

http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/603/selrtsl9.th.jpg (http://img186.imageshack.us/my.php?image=selrtsl9.jpg)

Don't think this will work (future branch line to SH PK). There is far too much residential in the area of 101 between the Quarters, Riverdale, Forest Heights, Terrace Heights and Fulton Place. Not to mention the oil and gas pipelines along 101/Baseline into Sherwood Park. And Dawson comes up at 106 ave at Mc Nally High School, not 101 avenue.

lightrail
20-02-2009, 11:16 PM
Actually Sonic a HSR would be travelling fairly slow as this would be near the station and they weigh sufficiently more than a LRT. The LRTs can accelerate and declerate much quicker so in reality it would be the HSR slowing down the LRT not the other way around, they could use common tracks for the bridge and split off at the north end to the station, and at the south end assumably to the Old Strathcona area. When I was on the Eurostar it would take about 2-3 miles to catch up with a commuter train when they both left at the same time.

If we do get a sufficient population base the HSR frequency probably wouldn't be more then around 1 train per hour plenty of time to get quite a few LRT trains between.

The electrical supply is a different thing originally the U2 and SD160 LRTs used 600V DC for Edmonton. TGVs primarily use 25kV AC at 50Hz, the Japanese Shinkansen primarily use 25kV AC as well but at 60Hz

This is not an insurmountable obstacle as quite a few varients of both use multiple voltages, the original Eurostar used 25kV AC from the catanery in France but 600V AC from a 3rd rail on the older lines in England as well the Thalys TGVs can run under 25Kv 50Hz, 15kV 16.7 Hz, 4kV DC, and 1500V DC as well the Oresund railway from Denmark to Sweden runs at 15kV 16 2/3 Hz and 25Kv 50Hz. So if you handle the electrical system right LRT and HSR could both travel on the same tracks as most systems use standard gauge track

There will be no need to share tracks on the High Level Bridge - it is wide enough to carry three tracks and it used to do that when it opened - two streetcar tracks and one train track. The HSR could be single track across the bridge.

Agree with you the dual voltage - it is common in Europe. London operates Overground trains that dual voltage, the switch occurring in the tunnels while the train is running.

The Eurostar is actually multi-voltage - the trains can pick up 750v DC from the third rail (used to be used on the Network Southeast lines in and out of Waterloo), 25kv AC overhead on Britain's HS1 and the TGV lines in France and Belgium, and 3kv DC overhead for use on Belgium "classic" lines. Some sets also have 1500v DC overhead used on French "classic" lines. The power supply affects the train's top speed - for example, on the 750v DC lines, trains can only go 160km/h; on the 25kv AC the trains are capable of 330km/h.

So even if the HSR was to share track with the LRT on the high level, it could be designed to use 600v DC overhead pickup.

The Eurostar and TGV trains can accelerate faster than suburban electric trains in most cases, the acceleration depends on the available power supply - the trains would have a normal acceleration slower than LRT, for example, for passenger comfort and to avoid drawing all the power from the line - remember in Europe, there are many other electric trains drawing from the same power supply.

kkozoriz
21-02-2009, 03:04 AM
A quick and dirty idea for the route. Branch off north of Churchill. Station in The Quarters before crossing by the Dawson Bridge. Station at 101 ave with future branch splitting off to Sherwood Park. South to Bonnie Doon. Over Argyle to 75th st and on to Mill Woods TC.

http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/603/selrtsl9.th.jpg (http://img186.imageshack.us/my.php?image=selrtsl9.jpg)

Don't think this will work (future branch line to SH PK). There is far too much residential in the area of 101 between the Quarters, Riverdale, Forest Heights, Terrace Heights and Fulton Place. Not to mention the oil and gas pipelines along 101/Baseline into Sherwood Park. And Dawson comes up at 106 ave at Mc Nally High School, not 101 avenue.

I know it comes up at 106th. The branch to Sherwood park would run down 101 ave. As for getting pat McNalley, I see a cut and cover tunnel under the athletic fields to 84th st. A station just before 101 ave would probably be like McKernan/Belgravia in size. Another station at Capilano would be larger and serve as an end of line until the extension to Sherwood Park was ready. The choices to Sherwood Park are either 101 ave or Whyte. 101 ave serves more residential.

etownboarder
21-02-2009, 02:39 PM
I hate the idea of missing the potential riders who would travel to Whyte Ave if there was an LRT station somewhere along the strip.

Sonic Death Monkey
21-02-2009, 04:45 PM
A quick and dirty idea for the route. Branch off north of Churchill. Station in The Quarters before crossing by the Dawson Bridge. Station at 101 ave with future branch splitting off to Sherwood Park. South to Bonnie Doon. Over Argyle to 75th st and on to Mill Woods TC.

http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/603/selrtsl9.th.jpg (http://img186.imageshack.us/my.php?image=selrtsl9.jpg)

Ya know, the more I look at this plan, the better I like it.

Just a few things:
- the line could run down a transit-only 102A Ave at ground level from Churchill through the Quarters with a station at 95 St. If there are plans to close 102A by Churchill Square anyway, may as well do the whole stretch from Jasper Ave.
- people who drive down 102A today can use 103A/104 Ave or a bidirectional 102 Ave.
- The Sherwood Park spur should have a station at Capilano Mall.
- south of Argyll are a couple of CPR rail crossings that might pose a challenge, may have to either tunnel under or bridge over them. If built along 75 St then that might make the city consider building rail overpasses for that road too.

Medwards
21-02-2009, 05:31 PM
^ you could keep pushing further west with that line too... Stony plain road, look out.

kkozoriz
21-02-2009, 05:31 PM
A quick and dirty idea for the route. Branch off north of Churchill. Station in The Quarters before crossing by the Dawson Bridge. Station at 101 ave with future branch splitting off to Sherwood Park. South to Bonnie Doon. Over Argyle to 75th st and on to Mill Woods TC.

http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/603/selrtsl9.th.jpg (http://img186.imageshack.us/my.php?image=selrtsl9.jpg)

Ya know, the more I look at this plan, the better I like it.
Just a few things:
- the line could run down a transit-only 102A Ave at ground level from Churchill through the Quarters with a station at 95 St.
- The Sherwood Park spur should have a station at Capilano Mall.
- south of Argyll are a couple of CPR rail crossings that might pose a challenge, may have to either tunnel under or bridge over them. If built along 75 St then that might make the city consider building rail overpasses for that road too.

I think the station at Capilano would be the end of the line for quite a few years. But, as most of the new growth in Sherwood Park will be north of Baseline Road a fairly direct run to Strathcona Station wouldn't be too difficult.

I hadn't considered it as a surface line. Hmmmmm, interesting. have to study the maps as to bridge placement, etc.

If I was better with Google maps You'd see stations at 84th and just north of 101 ave, Bonnie Doon, Argyle/WP Wagner, 75th st just south of Whitemud and Millwoods TC.

Sonic Death Monkey
21-02-2009, 05:49 PM
^ Also, a Sherwood LRT would have to take place under a regional plan where Strathcona County would presumably cough up for the cost of building it through their county.

Solaris
22-02-2009, 09:26 AM
Century park > (along 23rd ave) SEC > up the 91st st corridor swinging east at 28th ave>Lakewood>mwtc

madsad
25-02-2009, 02:44 PM
Century park > (along 23rd ave) SEC > up the 91st st corridor swinging east at 28th ave>Lakewood>mwtc

This is the most realistic alignment, and the easiest. It was, for a while, being mentioned by project planners quite frequently, but it seems to have dropped from view. Much of this corridor is already reserved as future transit right-of-way (along 28 Ave and the space to the west of the Mill Woods Transit Centre), land acquisition is not a problem.

The transition from 23 Ave to 28 Ave was through the John Fry Park area, though.

I would assume that the 23 Ave interchange could be modified in the future for LRT, as was the 111 St/Whitemud interchange.

I've worked-out a rough Googlemap, with a few wish-list items, of course: http://www.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=106598884252358289226.0004635b9e92b3b4d31ea&t=h&z=13

kkozoriz
25-02-2009, 03:28 PM
Ya know, the more I look at this plan, the better I like it.

Just a few things:
- the line could run down a transit-only 102A Ave at ground level from Churchill through the Quarters with a station at 95 St. If there are plans to close 102A by Churchill Square anyway, may as well do the whole stretch from Jasper Ave.
- people who drive down 102A today can use 103A/104 Ave or a bidirectional 102 Ave.
- The Sherwood Park spur should have a station at Capilano Mall.
- south of Argyll are a couple of CPR rail crossings that might pose a challenge, may have to either tunnel under or bridge over them. If built along 75 St then that might make the city consider building rail overpasses for that road too.

One thing that I'm trying to work out if it runs on the surface is how and where would it link up with the current line? It has to get to the service yard somehow. Or would we have a second yard somewhere in the SE?

I can see a line along 23rd ave in the far future. Actual express routes to Downtown and the University would help a great deal with travel in Mill Woods rather that shuttling everyone from MWTC to Century Park and then on from there. I just don't think the timing would work. Why spend 10 minutes just crossing Gateway before actually heading north?

Once the main lines are in place I think a line along 23rd between Mill Woods and Tweillager would work but that's far, far in the future.

madsad
25-02-2009, 06:06 PM
I can see a line along 23rd ave in the far future. Actual express routes to Downtown and the University would help a great deal with travel in Mill Woods rather that shuttling everyone from MWTC to Century Park and then on from there. I just don't think the timing would work. Why spend 10 minutes just crossing Gateway before actually heading north?

Once the main lines are in place I think a line along 23rd between Mill Woods and Tweillager would work but that's far, far in the future.

It may seem like the Century Park - Mill Woods route is circuitous, but it really isn't. The catch is that the LRT is ROW-protected, so traffic hang-ups don't effect it.

The schedule from Downtown to Century Park will probably allow for about 17-19 minutes travel time (9 mins Churchill to Health Sciences, +7 to Southgate, +3 to Century Park). Travel from Century Park to Mill Woods will likely take 8-10 mins, for a total travel time of 27-31 minutes. This beats the pants off of the current 35 minute trip by express bus. Sometimes, during foul weather or when motorists are playing demolition derby, the trip takes 50-60 minutes, and, back in my Mill Hoods days, 90 minute trips were not unheard of.

There is a distinct advantage to this alignment, and it should be done before a Bonnie Doon/Connors Rd alignment. Tracks into the core are already there, service yard is there, ROW is there, bridge over the river. All the hard/expensive stuff is already done. 23 Ave is the home stretch.

Sonic Death Monkey
25-02-2009, 06:22 PM
One thing that I'm trying to work out if it runs on the surface is how and where would it link up with the current line? It has to get to the service yard somehow. Or would we have a second yard somewhere in the SE?
I am sure there could be a 2nd maintenance yard somewhere on the south side.

What I envision is expanding Churchill Square up to the ground level, and LRT users simply go up or down escalators. Multi-level transit stations exist in other cities - I've seen them in London and Toronto. This relies on closing off 99 St and 102A Ave to traffic, which is being discussed at City Hall recently. And it saves the cost of tunneling, obviously.

It's an idea to explore regardless if the seLRT goes via 102A Ave/Dawson Bridge or via Shaw Conference Centre/Connors Hill.

edmontonenthusiast
25-02-2009, 06:30 PM
Personally I found MW LRT a perfect opportunity for Strathcona to get LRT. As long as Strathcona has LRT I'd be fine. Maybe two lines that join up to one MW LRT line? Maybe one that goes through Strathcona, and one that takes Connors Rd that would really open up the LRT to more passengars.

bicycles
25-02-2009, 07:06 PM
Personally I found MW LRT a perfect opportunity for Strathcona to get LRT. As long as Strathcona has LRT I'd be fine. Maybe two lines that join up to one MW LRT line? Maybe one that goes through Strathcona, and one that takes Connors Rd that would really open up the LRT to more passengars.

I have already posted my map farther up, but my map does this. The MW line includes stops at Strathcona, University, and Downtown(Grandin or new 109 street station) and then continues through Oliver to West Edmonton Mall (which would also link WEM up to Downtown) I haven't added it to my map, but the green line would eventually go east of churchill with a quarters stop then across Dawson Bridge onto Sherwood Park (and then the northern part would head up to St. Albert) I didn't get any feedback before, so just curious as to what others think?

http://www.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&oe=UTF8&msa=0&msid=106738613224964610433.0004629c45e0e8c130d22

changed the route a bit so it now is a bit straight south of Whyte.

edmontonenthusiast
25-02-2009, 07:15 PM
^I actually don't mind it. It's quite SLEEK. Although some of the turns are sharp, but not much you can do about that. With the WLRT line you got, how do you plan to get the LRT through the Save On Foods (On Ninth) Parking lot to go to 102 AVe and go to Oliver? Or is it underground? Also I'd make High Street station at 124th Street. I'd also make a stop at 149th St. For Mill Woods, I'd include a stop at 83rd and 105th. Another way you could connect it to Strathcona is use the trolley line lands. I'd also include a station at Faculte St Jean. I'd include one at 71st and 34ave. Another thing you could do is have the Mill Woods loop back to S LRT on the Anthony Henday. other than that, it looks good.

bicycles
25-02-2009, 07:29 PM
^I actually don't mind it. It's quite SLEEK. Although some of the turns are sharp, but not much you can do about that. With the WLRT line you got, how do you plan to get the LRT through the Save On Foods (On Ninth) Parking lot to go to 102 AVe and go to Oliver? Or is it underground? Also I'd make High Street station at 124th Street. I'd also make a stop at 149th St. For Mill Woods, I'd include a stop at 83rd and 105th. Another way you could connect it to Strathcona is use the trolley line lands. I'd also include a station at Faculte St Jean. I'd include one at 71st and 34ave. Another thing you could do is have the Mill Woods loop back to S LRT on the Anthony Henday. other than that, it looks good.

- yeah, the plan would be start to tunnel at the end of 102 ave and connect underground to the Grandin line. It's not a lot of tunneling, and its almsot all through a parking lot.

- the spot I picked for the 124 street stop is a parking lot, not a whole lot of other open areas around there unless something was torn down.

- in regards to the other stops, is yeah, lots of places could be argued for spots. Didn't want to add too much more as it already has I think 5 more stops then the blue line despite being almost the same distance, but some could definitely be shuffled around, especially if the line instead did cut south after 95th st (Mill Creek Ravine I think?) along the tracks.

edmontonenthusiast
25-02-2009, 07:34 PM
I think until RAM, the stops should be underground. It'd be wierd, and it takes up too much space to have stops on 124th St.

bicycles
25-02-2009, 07:36 PM
I think until RAM, the stops should be underground. It'd be wierd, and it takes up too much space to have stops on 124th St.

yeah, I'd prefer that as well, but would be a lot more costly. One can hope though...

edmontonenthusiast
25-02-2009, 07:38 PM
^Yes I hope. I just find it'd be too odd for the neighbourhood, underground OR TROLLEY would seem the only way to go. I'm just looking at how it worked at University, and Health Sciences just takes up a lot of room. Now it may be okay there, but I can't imagine the long LRT station on 102ave, it would rip up the whole neighbourhood I'd think, or we'd get the wierd half station thing we have on 7th in Calgary.

Medwards
25-02-2009, 08:30 PM
Bicycles, whats the estimated ride time from Millwoods to Downtown? 30 mins? 40?

Your SE line zig zags way to much. There's really not point to jogging all the way over to 75 st like you are, and if this line is going down whyte ave, it should prolly try to use the high level bridge via the old rail ROW that cuts through Northern Old Strathcona. (The one that the high level street car uses)

edmontonenthusiast
25-02-2009, 08:31 PM
^He's using 83rd Avenue.

Medwards
25-02-2009, 08:39 PM
Close enough. It should still use the high level bridge rather then a complicated tunnel into university station.

richardW
25-02-2009, 08:40 PM
silly question but whats up with the station on the whitemud in your map?

edmontonenthusiast
25-02-2009, 08:40 PM
^it is te same thing i was saying.

"Another way you could connect it to Strathcona is use the trolley line lands."

edit: richard, i agree. who is going to use that?

bicycles
25-02-2009, 11:07 PM
Close enough. It should still use the high level bridge rather then a complicated tunnel into university station.

Theres no tunnel, it uses the same tunnel at Health Sciences... Also, there is not that much zigzagging at all on the updated map and the only reason they do is to avoid something or to turn them into more populated areas. And there not so much zigzags as they are curves, its just tough to "curve" lines on google maps.

As for the Whitemud station, I picture it as a good place for a park and ride for people in the area, maybe not though.

edmontonenthusiast
25-02-2009, 11:08 PM
^No park n' ride might be ok.

fanfare
01-03-2009, 04:25 PM
silly question but whats up with the station on the whitemud in your map?

If that station is moved slightly west, it would be where the current millgate transit centre is.

Medwards
01-03-2009, 04:43 PM
Close enough. It should still use the high level bridge rather then a complicated tunnel into university station.

Theres no tunnel, it uses the same tunnel at Health Sciences... Also, there is not that much zigzagging at all on the updated map and the only reason they do is to avoid something or to turn them into more populated areas. And there not so much zigzags as they are curves, its just tough to "curve" lines on google maps.

As for the Whitemud station, I picture it as a good place for a park and ride for people in the area, maybe not though.

How does it get around UofA Hospital?

sundance
02-03-2009, 11:04 AM
If they were to use Whyte Ave the simplest routing would be start going east just south Corbett Hall, use up some of the parking lot north of the ball diamonds

High Level Bridge to Whyte than across might be more expensive

Walterdale Bridge is nearing its lifespan and is getting due for replacement, however it is close to the bottom of the river, an LRT bridge would have to be considerably higher or you'd need to do a lot of tunnelling on the north or south sides of the river.

Connors Road a bridge near the convention center is possible, again would need to be higher than Low Level, Low Level has another wrinkle, it's a historic structure so modifications to appearance would be limited

Dawson Bridge, might be too far "north" to be acceptable

28th Ave from 111th Street would be fairly cheap, some tunnelling would be needed to get under the train tracks and assumably Gateway Blvd, Calgary Trail but this may put too much usage on the line from Health Sciences to downtown.

I prefer two routes either a connection south of Health Sciences and down Whyte or High Level Bridge about 104th Street Whyte 83rd St/86th St

Edmcowboy11
02-03-2009, 02:51 PM
High Level Bridge to Whyte than across might be more expensive


How would it be more expensive? Going over the high level and using the ROW that is already there would mean maybe replacing the track with new tracks and the installation of power.

sundance
02-03-2009, 02:59 PM
You might have to widen the tunnel under that apartment building on the south side of the high level bridge its a single line ROW if my memory is right.
http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=53.523536,-113.510619&spn=0.00155,0.003433&t=h&z=18

bicycles
02-03-2009, 03:38 PM
Close enough. It should still use the high level bridge rather then a complicated tunnel into university station.

Theres no tunnel, it uses the same tunnel at Health Sciences... Also, there is not that much zigzagging at all on the updated map and the only reason they do is to avoid something or to turn them into more populated areas. And there not so much zigzags as they are curves, its just tough to "curve" lines on google maps.

As for the Whitemud station, I picture it as a good place for a park and ride for people in the area, maybe not though.

How does it get around UofA Hospital?

just south of 83 ave.. if you look at the map in satellite view and zoom in it shows a better view. it could also go further south though that open area instead of between the buildings.

highlander
02-03-2009, 09:11 PM
You might have to widen the tunnel under that apartment building on the south side of the high level bridge its a single line ROW if my memory is right.
http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=53.523536,-113.510619&spn=0.00155,0.003433&t=h&z=18

I suspect that with frequencies similar to NELRT (5-6 minutes) the single track would be OK. If expansion is required I could see a vertical expansion (going down) being completely feasible and significantly cheaper and less disruptive than widening, as long as only a few feet are needed to make stacking work.

The tunnel is just under 200m, by google earth.

At speed an LRT train would be through the tunnel in about 15 seconds, although the one way space would be longer than that, maybe double or triple. It's still nowhere long enough to require double tracking, though.

It actually would be best as gauntlet track, where there are two separate tracks that overlap, so that the ROW needs to be slightly wider than it would have to be for singletrack, but there's no need for switches that would slow things down.

lightrail
14-03-2009, 08:18 PM
Here's my map of Edmonton's LRT as I'd like to see it. This uses the High Level Bridge for one line. Note the routing of the Red (west - east) line through downtown is all on the surface.

http://members.shaw.ca/david.marlor/ets.jpg

grish
14-03-2009, 08:53 PM
I like it with a few exceptions. St. Albert line can split off the red west-east line and go past Westmount. I don't get the point of green line after Century Park, but I can live with that. And it's Kingsway and Elerslie, not Kingsways and Elerslies. Otherwise, well done!

ps by "rutherford south" you mean Edmonton International Airport, right?

moahunter
14-03-2009, 09:20 PM
^While I don't really agree with the West alignment, I like it the total map as well. I think I understand the point of the green line after Century Park - it offers the opportunity to service Millwoods fast while the more direct yellow line gets designed, and also links Millwoods to UofA, Southgate, SEC (major employer), etc.

fanfare
14-03-2009, 10:17 PM
I think this is a nice map too.

You missed McEwan station. It would be a busy interchange station with 3 of 4 lines accessible. Although if you're travelling from "Rutherfood" or Rutherford South to WEM, you'll have to change trains twice at Churchill (or any of the stations between) and then McEwan - kinda redudant. Maybe Churchill can be the central interchange station?