PDA

View Full Version : East LRT | Downtown to Sherwood Park | Discussion



The_Cat
20-05-2009, 11:15 PM
Here's Sherwood Park's take on the LRT.

Strathcona (County) still waiting for LRT

Posted By Michael Di Massa, Sherwood Park News Staff

With the announcements earlier this month of LRT extension line plans in Edmonton, those hoping for news of a rail line coming into Sherwood Park will have to keep waiting.

“It’s still in the mix, in terms of looking at the total LRT network system,” Edmonton transit general manager Bob Boutilier said of any potential rail line heading into the Park.

A report due in June to the Edmonton city council includes a map of potential rail lines, including one stretching from the University of Alberta towards Sherwood Park — an extension of the proposed LRT route to Millwoods.

http://www.sherwoodparknews.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1575556

highlander
20-05-2009, 11:45 PM
Wait a second. I thought that Sherwood park was a real city, independent of anyone around them. So why do they depend on us to build LRT their way?

If they want it they can build the whole darn thing themselves, and pay 100% for everything east of 50th street, and 50% from there to Bonney Doon or so.

Perspective
21-05-2009, 12:08 AM
Wait a second. I thought that Sherwood park was a real city, independent of anyone around them. So why do they depend on us to build LRT their way?

If they want it they can build the whole darn thing themselves, and pay 100% for everything east of 50th street, and 50% from there to Bonney Doon or so.

agreed. When Edmonton wants them to join and become one big city they say no, but they expect to have lrt built to their door :confused:? haha

armin
21-05-2009, 12:17 AM
agreed. When Edmonton wants them to join and become one big city they say no, but they expect to have lrt built to their door :confused:? haha

Agreed with both of you. Why in the world would we fund an LRT track to Sherwood Park or St. Albert without them footing 1/2 the costs?

sbrussell
21-05-2009, 05:41 AM
Yup. Sherwood Park can suck it up and foot the damn bill.

Ins
21-05-2009, 07:29 AM
I'd love to have LRT in SC but I'd have to agree with the article that it makes a lot more sense to go elsewhere first.

moahunter
21-05-2009, 08:35 AM
If they want it they can build the whole darn thing themselves, and pay 100% for everything east of 50th street, and 50% from there to Bonney Doon or so.
I think if the Millwoods line went via Dawson / Capilano / 50 street, it really is only a hop, skip and a jump to Sherwood Park. I guess that's not the Dawson proposed route though.

I guess they could pay the cost to link if they want it sooner - and apply for Federal and Provincial funding to help out, just like we do.

MrOilers
21-05-2009, 08:40 AM
Ha ha. We haven't built a line to West Edmonton Mall or Mill Woods yet.

Was anyone in Sherwood Park honestly expecting it?

IanO
21-05-2009, 08:43 AM
oh look who has come knocking...

we pay to our city limits, they pay the rest.

Ins
21-05-2009, 08:58 AM
oh look who has come knocking...

we pay to our city limits, they pay the rest.


Who's suggesting otherwise?

highlander
21-05-2009, 08:59 AM
oh look who has come knocking...

we pay to our city limits, they pay the rest.

Why would we even pay that far? anything past capilano mall is far more useful to them than it is to us, and they would be the majority of riders all the way to wherever it joins the Millwoods line.

raz0469
21-05-2009, 09:10 AM
The hostility towards Sherwood Park on these boards is getting completely ridiculous. The article says nothing about how it will be funded and no one in SP is demanding LRT or even expecting it. Did any of you actually read it? It merely discusses the possibility of LRT going to SP sometime in the future, and Boutillier pretty clearly states that it would be one of the last lines built.

Honestly, every time I see a mention of SP on these boards the past couple of weeks, it's immediately followed by 20 posts of people deriding the community. Get over yourselves already.

IanO
21-05-2009, 09:14 AM
^regardless of who it is, i am fed up with how our billion municipalities suck at working together rather than being selfish bastards.

Chmilz
21-05-2009, 09:21 AM
A line to Sherwood Park would need to have stops at Esso and Petro-Can. Shift workers would keep that line going 24 hours a day.

DTrobotnik
21-05-2009, 11:12 AM
"the Sherwood Park area doesn’t appear to have the ridership to warrant building the LRT extension...
the Sherwood Park line would probably be one of the last lines to build..."

nuff said

RTA
21-05-2009, 11:22 AM
The headline really does a disservice to the article, implying that somehow Sherwood Park is demanding Edmonton move on a line in their direction, which the article doesn't really indicate at all. In fact, the article itself isn't really news to begin with, I'm not sure what purpose it really serves except to remind us of what we already know.

sundance
21-05-2009, 11:49 AM
Isn't this one of the reasons why there is a regional board? There are a million details to work out, though, but a line to Sherwood Park can help serve either Whyte Ave or 101st Ave so there are benefits to Edmontonians as well.

The_Cat
21-05-2009, 07:12 PM
I think, while Sherwood Park's line is at least a decade away, that improving transit connections would mean less wear and tear on Edmonton's streets. Sherwood Park could think of the following:

(1) Bus rapid transit, much like how Vancouver's service supports the SkyTrain. This could kick off regional transit.

(2) Collaborating with the city on land acquisition for a potential LRT route.

(3) Trading bus routes with the city, by allowing city buses to Millennium Place or other Sherwood Park destinations, in exchange for a bus route from Sherwood Park to Southgate to connect to LRT.

If low-floor LRT is introduced to Whyte Avenue, Sherwood Park could have more connections to Bonnie Doon to support potential traffic calming on Whyte.

highlander
21-05-2009, 07:21 PM
Isn't this one of the reasons why there is a regional board? There are a million details to work out, though, but a line to Sherwood Park can help serve either Whyte Ave or 101st Ave so there are benefits to Edmontonians as well.

Those areas would be just as well served by a line that doesn't go to sherwood park.

THe details could get really messy when the time comes to negotiate who pays, because Edmonton (with provincial and federal help, of course) has built the core system that a strathcona county line would feed into, and while that portions will serve parkians well, edmontonians will get little benefit from the extension. Really they should be paying a proportional share NOW for lines going to NAIT and the west end. Millwoods residents have been paying for LRT extensions to other areas of the city for decades before they get access so it makes sense that we all help pay for thier bit. That logic doesn't work for st albert and sherwood park.

Medwards
21-05-2009, 08:45 PM
the_cat- Sherwood Park practically operates a BRT as is... Limited amount of stops between Sherwood Park and uofa or downtown... You can get from Sherwood Park to Downtown Edmonton quicker then most other bus routes in the city do...

edmontonenthusiast
21-05-2009, 09:20 PM
agreed. When Edmonton wants them to join and become one big city they say no, but they expect to have lrt built to their door :confused:? haha

why do we need to be one big city? most american cities, vancouver, montréal, etc. can actually work with the communities around it, instead of just annexing everything.

Perspective
21-05-2009, 10:31 PM
why do we need to be one big city? most american cities, vancouver, montréal, etc. can actually work with the communities around it, instead of just annexing everything.

Because then all the property tax goes to one city

raz0469
22-05-2009, 08:59 AM
why do we need to be one big city? most american cities, vancouver, montréal, etc. can actually work with the communities around it, instead of just annexing everything.

And most American cities are rotting from the inside out because everyone lives in the suburbs and the central city has little or no residential tax base. Atlanta is a fantastic example.

Green Grovenor
22-05-2009, 09:59 AM
Because then all the property tax goes to one city

And the region has consistent rules. For example, Strathcona County tries to lure companies out of Edmonton by not charging business licensing fees.

Fortunately, we've still got a monopoly on bong sales!

lightrail
28-05-2009, 02:10 PM
why do we need to be one big city? most american cities, vancouver, montréal, etc. can actually work with the communities around it, instead of just annexing everything.

Agreed. What Edmonton needs is a Regional Transit System, similiar to Translink in Vancovuer or the Victoria Regional Transit System.

Translink provides service to over 20 municipalities and some un-incorporated areas. It is the largest service area in North Amercia, serving 1,800 square kilometres. Buses run from the US Border to Lions Bay (and on Bowen Island), and from the Pacific Ocean to the Surrey/Abbotsford Border. A connecting bus operated by ValleyMax connects the Translink Service to Abbotsford and Mission. West Coast Express, operated by Translink, runs to Mission - 65km east of Vancovuer. Fares are integrated.

The Victoria Regional Transit System services 13 municipalities and one un-incorporated area - buses run from west of Sooke to the top end of the Saanich Peninsula. Connecting service is provided over the Malahat to Duncan, connecting with the Cowichan Valley Regional Transit System.

There are examples of regional services all over BC. Some operated by a single system, other's different systems connecting and integrating fares.

The point is that the Edmonton Region would benefit greatly from a regional approach to transit planning, funding and operation. Commuters ignore political boundaries, so why do transit systems have to observe them too? This is were the Provincial government could take a lead. I'd love to see the BC model used in Alberta. The Province would need to establish "Alberta Transit" and legislation to allow regional transit systems to be setup. The BC model is a P3 operation, with a private operator running the buses, the municipality or regional commission setting fares and routes and BC Transit providing buses, technology and reserach and some funding.

Medwards
28-05-2009, 02:19 PM
http://capitalregionboard.ab.ca/index.php/transit

Edmcowboy11
30-05-2009, 02:10 AM
I think that if LRT is to go out to Sherwood Park, stratcona county has to do a few things. First of all it should follow St.Albert in it's approach and say, "Here's some money, please do some studies/planning for us." Second I would really like to know how much Sherwood Park residents want LRT. Third and most important is to start working with the city of Edmonton, weather it is through the capital region board or directly with Edmonton Transit to figure things out and get plans in the works so that when the time is right LRT can happen.

KenL
07-06-2009, 11:24 PM
I think that if LRT is to go out to Sherwood Park, stratcona county has to do a few things. First of all it should follow St.Albert in it's approach and say, "Here's some money, please do some studies/planning for us." Second I would really like to know how much Sherwood Park residents want LRT. Third and most important is to start working with the city of Edmonton, weather it is through the capital region board or directly with Edmonton Transit to figure things out and get plans in the works so that when the time is right LRT can happen.

To anser your last question first, Thats a great idea to work with the City of Edmonton on issues like this, but the City has done a great job of screwing with SC, case in point SC lobbied for many years(decades?) for a hospital, finally got the funding to go ahead from the province notified all relevant parties of where they wanted to build, received no objections, except for at the eleventh hour the City of Edmonton threw in an objection that the Hospital would be too close to industrial land across the highway and delayed the hospital start by almost a year, now we still have no hospital because it has been delayed due to economic reasons, had the City kept its nose out we would now hav a hospital (it was supposed to open fall 2009). What in the name of Oden did SC do to **** Edmonton off so much that they successfully delayed a very much needed hospital.

Point being these two can't agree that the sky is blue without starting a fight, how are they supposed to come up with a regional transit plan!!

To answer the first two questions

First St.Albert's 50K is peanuts and the whole thing is just BS, 50K won't get you an estimate to do a study never mind an actual study

Second, as said earlier SC has a BRT(in reality not name) now and has twice the ridership of St. Albert, many folks I talk to in the park would welcome the LRT to Wye or Baseline and it would be pretty easy to get it there too, IMO way easier than to St. Albert.

PS I agree with the poster earlier that you can't even mention SC on this board and a pile of people crap all over you.

one thing to remember alot of the money(75 to 90%) somes from the Feds or the Alberta Government and the last time I checked my Passport it said Canadian living in Alberta!!!

etownboarder
07-06-2009, 11:31 PM
Maybe Strathcona County and Sherwood Park should think about that the next time they cause problems for the city of Edmonton ;)

Ins
07-06-2009, 11:38 PM
I wonder if the hospital being built across the street from one of Mandel's real estate investments would increase their value?

sundance
08-06-2009, 12:09 AM
Not likely, its about the size of the NE Community Medical Center in Edmonton. Fort Sask with 12,000 people has a full hospital which will be replaced.

The_Cat
09-06-2009, 12:14 AM
I think, for the proposed premium transit in Edmonton, that Edmonton Transit could take a few cues from Strathcona County. Bus service has stops at Bonnie Doon, 91 Street and Strathcona en route to the U of A. Downtown routes have only one or two key stops between Sherwood Park and Edmonton.

If Edmonton wants a route like that to Mill Woods, they should only have stops at key locations. I just hope that it doesn't get watered down because somebody complains about it not stopping on their street corner.

RTA
09-06-2009, 09:33 AM
^ We have those...they're called "Express" buses.

Medwards
09-06-2009, 09:45 AM
Most of these express buses are only express during the peak rush hours though

RTA
09-06-2009, 09:47 AM
My point is that they're nothing new, and they aren't anything to "take a cue from Strathcona County" - we already offer similar services in the form of express buses.

edmonton daily photo
09-06-2009, 09:50 AM
I am certain it won't be waterdown. The transit planers have a mandate and tehy are good at following it.

In the past the manadate was to have community service, which lead to every bus stopping every few blocks and routes that twisted and turned onto side paths before hitting is final destination.

They only follow the approved plan.

I have been trying for years to get tthe 100 year to make one stop in the west end of oliver with no success.

edmonton daily photo
09-06-2009, 09:52 AM
My point is that they're nothing new, and they aren't anything to "take a cue from Strathcona County" - we already offer similar services in the form of express buses.

Premier buss is going to be diffrent than express i would assume.
Express seems to be node to node service, Premier buss will be direct routes with distant but even stop spacing.

I wonder what will happen to the express services?

RTA
09-06-2009, 10:01 AM
^ Correct. Didn't mean to imply that "premium" would just be an express bus, but was rather responding to the comments about how ETS should run routes like SCT, which are essentially just express routes.

The idea of "premium" bus routes seems to be some unholy mishmash compromise between an express route and BRT. I'm still not sure I fancy the idea, but I'm wiling to see how it works out given the relatively low cost of implementing it.

edmonton daily photo
09-06-2009, 10:04 AM
^

The idea of "premium" bus routes seems to be some unholy mishmash compromise between an express route and BRT. I'm still not sure I fancy the idea, but I'm wiling to see how it works out given the relatively low cost of implementing it.

premium buss is brt without all the infrustructure, as BRT would have dedicated ROW and signal priorety along the entire route, where premium buss may have some of that at times.

from the mouth of a city transportation planner

RTA
09-06-2009, 10:07 AM
^ ...which is pretty much what I was implying by my comments, but thanks for putting it into plain language.

Cleisthenis
14-07-2009, 01:36 PM
I've scanned the thread, and I don't think anyone has mentioned this yet, but I think a great way to connect the planned 250k+ community in Strathcona County (north east of the hwy 21/16 interchange) would be a high floor (sub-urban) commuter style spur extension off of the existing line. There is a giant empty stretch of land in the Homesteader/Hermitage area on the north edge of the Yellowhead on the way into the city that could make a great Century Park style TOD.

Then instead of dead-ending the line somewhere in the core we could build it out into a new SW extension from South Campus. This would enable higher density development of the U of A farm lands around Grandview, not to mention a great location for our Expo 2017 bid. From there the line scoots over to the Whitemud/Terwillegar drive corridors via 53rd Ave, and then all the way to the new developments in Windermere. Thereafter we can extend the line into the future towards Devon as we add new TOD nodes sequentially.

I'll post a map after I get home from work.

sundance
14-07-2009, 02:10 PM
The major problem with a routing near Yellowhead (or CN tracks) is you hit the northern edge of Sherwood Park a central routing would be best, but barring tunneling that isn't going to happen with a community with the building density of Sherwood Park. Bonny Doone/Sherwood Park Fwy or 101st Ave/Baseline Road might work better.

SteveB
14-07-2009, 02:53 PM
To me, Baseline makes most sense as you can also have a refinery stop.

As a Sherwood Park resident I would gladly vote for Strathcona County to pay their fair share.

sundance
14-07-2009, 03:06 PM
Sherwood Park should be reserving corridors as well for busways or LRT but alas like Edmonton they feel the traffic signal is God's gift to traffic flow. Last time I drove down Cloverbar Road there seemed like there were more signals than Jasper Avenue downtown.

McBoo
14-07-2009, 03:06 PM
oh look who has come knocking...

we pay to our city limits, they pay the rest.

Why would we even pay that far? anything past capilano mall is far more useful to them than it is to us, and they would be the majority of riders all the way to wherever it joins the Millwoods line.

I think this is part of what the regional board is supposed to do: determine regional transit needs - and then assess costs fairly.

Cleisthenis
14-07-2009, 11:47 PM
The major problem with a routing near Yellowhead (or CN tracks) is you hit the northern edge of Sherwood Park a central routing would be best, but barring tunneling that isn't going to happen with a community with the building density of Sherwood Park. Bonny Doone/Sherwood Park Fwy or 101st Ave/Baseline Road might work better.

That may be ideal today, but you'll note that in my concept below, the line does hit up Baseline Road after going by Millenium Place anyways. The three primary advantages of this proposed extension of the high-floor sub-urban LRT line are:

1. Connecting the planned Strathcona County urban centre (future +250k people) more directly with Sherwood Park on the way into and from Edmonton;

2. Supporting the development a large TOD opportunity at Homesteader south of Hermitage Road between 45th Street and 34th Street;

and,
3. Leveraging the existing LRT line and rail corridors to save money, and improve connection/destination efficiencies.

All three of those are damned near impossible by doing a separate extension to Sherwood Park from Downtown via the Capilano area.


These three lines form the backbone of my alternative 100 year LRT network plan.

1. Gold (G) Line - Heritage Valley to Gormann
2. Silver (S) Line - Lewis Estates to Lago Lindo
3. Bronze (B) Line - Windermere to Strathcona County

To be clear, I don't submit that B Line be even started until the S Line is completed from NAIT to WEM. Even then, the only way the B Line should have priority over a Mill Woods to St. Albert urban LRT line (via HLB, not shown), is if the U of A South Farm lands are selected as a site for a successful EXPO bid. In that case the Homesteader TOD should be given high priority to complete the first phase of that line.

For those of you who don't understand how long term LRT planning works in conjunction with land-use planning, let's just assume for example that the Windermere Area Structure Plan (ASP) would be ammended in this case to allow for a few high density TOD nodes from Henday south to 41st Street along the new corridor.

Thoughts?


http://www.getsthere.com/images/SubUrbanLRT_NE.gif

http://www.getsthere.com/images/SubUrbanLRT_SW.gif (http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?t=h&hl=en&ie=UTF8&msa=0&msid=108172527784536215794.00046eb72f9014c670f7a&z=11)

danimalrex
15-07-2009, 12:56 AM
^I've been wondering when someone was going to broach the subject of taking a line down through Riverbend/Terwilligar/Windermere.

Medwards
15-07-2009, 08:15 AM
your sherwood park line is useless. Travelling down the yellowhead / CN rail line serves no purpose.. other then to use the rail row... You create an extra long route to downtown, and miss the refinieries and east Edmonton 'along' the way.

sundance
15-07-2009, 09:15 AM
The other major factor with using the CN bridge, it is only one track, I'm fairly confident the foundation and pylons of the structure would take the weight of a two LRT tracks, train and passengers it would cost a fair bit to widen (50? 100? million)

Cleisthenis
15-07-2009, 09:36 AM
The other major factor with using the CN bridge, it is only one track, I'm fairly confident the foundation and pylons of the structure would take the weight of a two LRT tracks, train and passengers it would cost a fair bit to widen (50? 100? million)

Might be time for a new bridge there sometime over the next 15 years before the line would be extended past Homesteader anyways... ;)

The_Cat
15-07-2009, 07:18 PM
I wonder how much the Sherwood Park line would be used, given roads like the Sherwood Park Freeway, Baseline Road and Yellowhead go faster than the LRT? If it does go to Sherwood Park, it would have to take a straight route like Baseline. I don't think a route that winds around the CN tracks would be popular for those who commute to Edmonton.

Cleisthenis
17-07-2009, 12:44 AM
I wonder how much the Sherwood Park line would be used, given roads like the Sherwood Park Freeway, Baseline Road and Yellowhead go faster than the LRT? If it does go to Sherwood Park, it would have to take a straight route like Baseline. I don't think a route that winds around the CN tracks would be popular for those who commute to Edmonton.

The same argument could be made about the rationale behind building the West LRT line though, right? Why build it when the west is already going to be served well by (an expanded) Whitemud Freeway and Anthony Henday Drive.

Again, if you read the 3 primary reasons for building this line you'll see that the planned city centre north east of Sherwood Park is going to happen. Edmonton lost it's court case against the county. I've read the documents on the county website and seems like their goals for those communities already fall in line with the Edmonton City Vision and the forthcoming MDP/TMP documents.

The key missing ingredient is high speed transit into the core.

A urban style LRT line is not (in my estimation) the most efficient way to make that connection.

The high-floor, sub-urban model we have now will work best. Does the line extension HAVE to run along yellowhead? Absolutely not. In fact, since (and because of) your last post, I've been inspired to look at some southern approaches that would connect to the south LRT extension, with the line then splitting off towards St. Albert along Kingsway. That might even be preferable, as any future Homesteader and South Farmland developments would be better served by future urban lines.

If you click on the images, you'll see the updated Bronze line options on google maps:
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=108172527784536215794.00046eb72f9014c670f7a&z=11

In the end we need to look at maximizing the main tunnel, and access to downtown and the U of A which it provides with adding TWO additional high-floor lines.

Separation is not an issue if all THREE have a max peak frequency of 15 minutes... with trains arriving at shared stations every 5 minutes.

Mill Woods, west end north, SW and other corridors can be built up with urban lines down the road (or track as it were). ;)

SteveB
17-07-2009, 09:09 AM
I can't speak for anyone else - but I would use it for work every day.

The commute from Sherwood Park is pretty easy by car, takes me 25 mins, but we only have 1 car and when there's an accident/fire (at least once/month), the commute becomes over an hour.

I woudl love to read a book and not worry about some of the idiots in wrong lanes.

kkozoriz
17-07-2009, 09:37 AM
The ease of branching off a line to Sherwood Park at 101 ave is one reason I favor the Dawson Bridge alignment for MWLRT. The idea that you'd go almost to Belvedere on the way to downtown just boggles me. Start at Festival Place, stop at Strathcona Station and then right down Baseline Road past Capilano to the MWLRT line and across the Dawson. Quick, direct.

moahunter
17-07-2009, 10:57 AM
A urban style LRT line is not (in my estimation) the most efficient way to make that connection.

You are getting urban and low floor, and high floor all mixed up. They are different concepts. Low floor can be suburban, high floor can be urban.

The City has said that High Floor is not an option for Millwoods, it would be cost prohibitive to try to connect to current system (23 ave was not looked at, for whatever reason) We can see this by how costly the NAIT dig out is - all future lines (subject to what is decided re 87 vs SPR), will be low floor. As the East line will certainly one day connect to the Millwoods line (why would it not? it will swing in that direction), it will be low floor too. It could be built suburban (fewer stations and more dedicated ROW at intersections) if that's what communities want.

highlander
17-07-2009, 01:47 PM
...
In the end we need to look at maximizing the main tunnel, and access to downtown and the U of A which it provides with adding TWO additional high-floor lines.
Separation is not an issue if all THREE have a max peak frequency of 15 minutes... with trains arriving at shared stations every 5 minutes. ...


You do realize that you're proposing a 40% reduction in capacity on the existing NE line, right?

Edmcowboy11
08-03-2010, 12:48 AM
A line that would make the most sense to go to Sherwood Park in my opinion would travel along 85 st. from 95th ave to 98 ave. Then it would travel along 98th and could have 1 or 2 stops before having a station around capilano mall area. At that point it would then have it's next stop just inside of Sherwood Park on baseline road where there could be a park n ride facility.

kkozoriz
08-03-2010, 05:08 AM
I'd rather see it run along 101 ave with stops at 85th, 75th & at Capilano. Stops in the Park at the Baseline road transit centre and then down to Festival Place. Since it'll be a low floor line it could revitalize the commercial strip along 101 ave similar to what's hoped for SPR.


http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&ll=53.534951,-113.434353&spn=0.040606,0.098448&z=14&msid=108343013799410208037.00048148ef944dc932fd4

Edmcowboy11
08-03-2010, 09:15 AM
^The only problem with that route would be that through the residential area there would either be needed a total closure the avenue or the demolision of a row of house. Going via 98 ave there would only be a potential loss of traffic lanes. I do agree though that it would be nice to have LRT along the business part of 101 st.

Edmcowboy11
06-04-2010, 08:31 PM
I've looking through different studies and proposals for LRT around the city and I find it interesting that we have lines proposed North/North West, South East, West, and extensions North East and South but still nothing official East to Sherwood Park. I wonder if there is any plans in the works or are LRT planners not really bothering because of a total lack of interest by Strathcona county officials?

kkozoriz
06-04-2010, 08:58 PM
There's nor a whole lot of Edmonton to the east of Bonnie Doon, where I would imagine the SP line would connect. That being said I think there'll be a lot of calls for an extension out that way once St. Albert is connected.

The_Cat
06-04-2010, 09:11 PM
^^I hope that Strathcona County is interested in LRT. Sherwood Park is getting near capacity, and there are two main roads (Sherwood Park Freeway and Baseline) into Edmonton. It would be remiss for Sherwood Park not to consider this.

Marcel Petrin
07-04-2010, 09:09 AM
But then we get back to the whole discussion about enabling sprawl in bedroom communities by building LRT to them. Considering the paucity of dense residential or employment nodes on the East side of the city and the distances involved compared with the other quadrants, the East end really is pretty much the lowest priority in my mind, and Sherwood Park would come after St. Albert and the airport lines.

Edmcowboy11
07-04-2010, 09:14 AM
^True to a point, because if we build to Sherwood Park we would be building to it's center or at least to its outer edge closest to Edmonton, not building to is most recent developments. Sprawl in these other communities have to be controlled weather or not LRT is present.

Spill
07-04-2010, 09:26 AM
... the East end really is pretty much the lowest priority in my mind, and Sherwood Park would come after St. Albert and the airport lines.
Ouch! Sherwood Park after St. Albert, maybe. But not after the airport. Regardless of density, the potential ridership from the Park is too significant, IMO.

moahunter
07-04-2010, 09:59 AM
^it seems like it should be such a short simple line as well, it doesn't have to go far, just to the eastern edge of Capilano by the refineries, before it all becomes the responsibility of Sherwood Park to build out.

edmonton daily photo
07-04-2010, 10:22 AM
My concern is the Parks ability, or lack there of, to play nicely in the same sand box as the rest of the region...

lightrail
07-04-2010, 01:16 PM
... the East end really is pretty much the lowest priority in my mind, and Sherwood Park would come after St. Albert and the airport lines.
Ouch! Sherwood Park after St. Albert, maybe. But not after the airport. Regardless of density, the potential ridership from the Park is too significant, IMO.

I think the potential is actually quite low. Sherwood Park is served by two freeways (actually three if you include the Yellowhead, four if we include Anthony Henday), which is hard for LRT to compete against. Not everybody from the Park are going downtown, but to industrial areas not served by LRT. Finally, the LRT would have to pass through a long area of no development (Capilano to Sherwood Park), costly to run and build.

Sherwood Park is extremely low density. If the intent is to build a urban transit LRT, then Sherwood Park is the wrong priority for LRT. Going there would result in a suburban LRT with a huge park and ride - ridership would be crowded in the peak and almost non-existent in the off-peak, especially at night. It would also be largely single direction.

moahunter
07-04-2010, 01:23 PM
^others have pointed out that Sherwood park has higher transit ridership than St Albert.

And, we would just have to build to the edge of the City. I expect this line, if it takes in Refinery row somehow (or connects to a shuttle or similar), could be very useful for Edmonton residents as well.

Edmcowboy11
07-04-2010, 01:43 PM
This is one case that not owning refinery row is advantageous for the city of Edmonton. If a line goes out that way it is up to Strathcona county to pay for the LRT line through refinery row and into Sherwood Park.

The_Cat
20-05-2010, 10:30 PM
With St. Albert planning its LRT, I think Sherwood Park has to also look at planning its LRT, perhaps along 101 Avenue/Baseline Road. With the route east of 34 Street, there will be two major bridges needed - the CPR/CNR tracks and Anthony Henday Drive.

Blueline
21-05-2010, 07:17 AM
Does this not fall into part of the Capital Region committee's doing's
Don't forget that Sherwood Forest could likely pay for their LRT connenction to River City just off the returns from their empty Chablis bottles ........

Edmcowboy11
21-05-2010, 08:57 AM
Unfortunately Sherwood Park is probably looking at LRT a whole lot differently than St.Albert. I applaud St.Albert for their interesting and willingness to work with the city. Sherwood Park/Strathcona county seems to be uninterested in working with Edmonton, which is too bad.

The_Cat
23-05-2010, 11:42 AM
As a Sherwood Park resident, I think much of the problem with city co-operation are the rural residents. For many years, five of the nine councillors were rural, and they would vote against any kind of development in Sherwood Park. They voted against Sherwood Park's first swimming pool in the early 1970's. They voted against commercial developments that accommodated Sherwood Park's growth. Up until about the late 1980's, there was no development along Baseline Road, and little development along Wye Road.

In 1995, four of the seven councillors were urban councillors, giving Sherwood Park (and Strathcona County's majority of residents) the balance of power. A few years ago, I talked to a candidate for councillor in one of the rural wards, and this person told me that many of the rural residents do not use Millennium Place. I replied that Millennium Place does not turn rural residents away, and that many Sherwood Park residents do.

I hope that any mayoral candidate running in this fall's election takes a serious look at LRT. Sherwood Park is in a better position to afford LRT, even if two or three extra miles of track have to be built along Baseline Road. Having a stop at Baseline/17 Street (along with bus service) would be great for anybody working around these industrial parks or refineries. The other Sherwood Park stops could include Broadmoor Boulevard, Sherwood Drive, and Cloverbar Road.

Brandonz
23-05-2010, 09:08 PM
I was on the strathcona transit website today; they are working on a transportation master plan. The county is seeking input from its residents through an online survey on transit improvements, and the possibility of LRT is mentioned.

edmonton daily photo
23-05-2010, 09:58 PM
^^ sherwood park should have solved that issue a long time ago by becoming a town/city. instead they have remained a Hamlet.. how can that even be possible with it's population size?!

sundance
23-05-2010, 10:06 PM
Its not much different then other situations in Alberta, Fort McMurray and the towns in the Crowsnest Pass area share a similar organizational structure.

KenL
24-05-2010, 11:07 PM
As a resident of Sherwood Park, I sometimes find comments from some living in other areas quite laughable. Sometimes the whole county gets tarnished with an Anti-Edmonton brush a little too easily, and sometimes everyone thinks we are royalty out here. Well just to let you know we're a bunch of hard working taxpaying SOB's just like everyone else.

And to stay on topic received an update letter from my councilor with some comments about LRT to Sherwood Park and the opinions shared were about 50/50 which is way better than a while ago when people would look at you like you were purple elephant for even discussing LRT to the Park. Of course there are the standard "..that would be a waste of taxpayers money..." statements but on the whole I think people are willing to look at it as an alternative to driving to/from Edmonton, which is a positive turn in my mind

The_Cat
24-05-2010, 11:31 PM
I don't like the generalizations that some people make about Sherwood Park either. Sure, Sherwood Park is more affluent, but it's not without its problems. Many people travel into Edmonton to work, and understand the problems that Edmonton has. Some of them started out in Edmonton, and eventually moved to Sherwood Park.

As for LRT, I think anybody who takes the bus into Edmonton would gladly support it.

abaka
01-06-2010, 11:23 PM
The patchwork municipality quilt is extremely unfair to the residents of the city proper. It's all about the services the suburbanites use and the taxation the do not pay. Yeah, roads to start with.

That's not original, but seriously that's where a lot of the negativity comes from initially.

Edmonton's "problems", with all due respect to the suburbanites, exist in every city worth its salt. Unfortunately they cannot be done away with, only worked against.

There should be forced amalgamation. Of St. Albert and Sherwood Park at a minimum.

sundance
02-06-2010, 09:40 AM
Abaka the capital regional board serves that purpose. Different cities and towns have different goals and focuses forcing them to be the same is actually counterintuitive. One city might want to pay more takes for more services, another less, why should everybody forced to the same level of mediocrity?

The regional board is there to provide services to link different cities, or where one cities actions impact neighboring cities. It could be more involved in transit or promoting of commuter rail and in the longer term future LRT.

If one looks at a few cities you see where the state has been involved in coordination. The state of California for San Francisco's (and other cities) - BART, the US Government states of Virginia and Maryland for Washington DCs Metro, the province of BC for Vancouver's Skytrain and Canada Line.

Bigger governments to me is never the answer.

etownboarder
02-06-2010, 10:01 AM
Abaka the capital regional board serves that purpose. Different cities and towns have different goals and focuses forcing them to be the same is actually counterintuitive. One city might want to pay more takes for more services, another less, why should everybody forced to the same level of mediocrity?


Just because someone doesn't WANT to pay for more services doesn't mean they shouldn't pay for it... I mean, nobody wants to pay for something if they don't have to or if they can have someone else pay for it. Look where that attitude has left us over the years. With a half-built LRT system and other crumbling infrastructure.

abaka
02-06-2010, 10:11 AM
Yes, as etownboarder said, it has nothing at all to do with "more government". The level of government is Strath County is exactly that of Edmonton's -- a municipal corporation.

The real issue is that the suburbanites who work in the city use city services and don't pay for them -- not as occasional guests, but as systematic profiteers. As far as I'm concerned, that's morally theft.

moahunter
02-06-2010, 10:15 AM
The real issue is that the suburbanites who work in the city use city services and don't pay for them -- not as occasional guests, but as systematic profiteers. As far as I'm concerned, that's morally theft.
Not really. They are tourists. Tourists are good for any city, even rowdy ones. They spend their money in the city. We don't pay for the cost of their snow removal, sewage, first stations, etc., but we benefit from the labour force which helps makes business in Edmonton more competitive. In a way it is ideal, beacause they pay more property tax in a bedroom commnuity (at least case with St Albert, not sure about Sherwood park as they have the refineries) than they would in Edmonton (as Edmonton has decided to subsidize new suburbs off the backs of mature neighborhoods). Its one less person for me to subsidize.

abaka
02-06-2010, 10:18 AM
^If they work and commute daily, they are no tourists, but leeches. And for the rest, you've got it exactly neo-con butt-backwards.

They profit from the work available in the city, from the yahoo sports made available, etc.
The city firms have the profit of their labour, of course; BUT that's private sector.

The city rate-payers as a public body have no profit.

Maintainling the highways until the city limits is a city responsibility, unless it can wheedle some grants from the province. And the leeches live right adjacent (the borders touch), but don't pay a cent.

etownboarder
02-06-2010, 10:24 AM
They spend their money in the city.

Oh yay... they go for lunch a couple times a week in the City. That's a very small portion of their money that they spend in Edmonton. VERY SMALL!!!

moahunter
02-06-2010, 10:28 AM
Oh yay... they go for lunch a couple times a week in the City. That's a very small portion of their money that they spend in Edmonton. VERY SMALL!!!
They go to Oilers games, Eskie games, they do stuff in the City. We are glad when people come from other countries and do that. It's good when they come from other towns to, including bedroom communities. Its great we don't have to pay for their sprawling ways, they pay themselves via the community lifestyle they have chosen, no direct subsidy from us (just stuff we need anyway).

Hilman
02-06-2010, 10:41 AM
I rather take their property taxes on top of what they spend in the city. Does a region of one one million really need all the duplication in government, transit, maintenance, etc. Do we need 22 mayors and their councils taking care of one region? 22 mayors x $50,000/year is $11,000,000 in salary that should be one person and one salary.

moahunter
02-06-2010, 10:50 AM
I rather take their property taxes on top of what they spend in the city.
But that's the dumb mistake we keep following. The new property taxes are going to keep going up to cover the sustainability of these new neighborhoods. Sherwood Park is a ticking time bomb, their rates will go up and up over time just like ours have, as it gets more and more expensive to service further and further out. Let them have that. We instead focus inwards without the long term cost that people will pay for in a bedroom community, but would have subsidized in Edmonton. It isn't worth the sort term money grab for the long term cost, leave that to them.

The multiple government may seem inefficient, but in a way it is more efficient. The needs of a neighborhoods like the Quarters, is very different from the needs of a neighborhood like Windermere. And, the Windermeres always win, because there is more money there, the donut hole keeps growing because of that. Our government needs to be more local not more spread, if we became one mega city of ex-urbs, there will never be any emphasis on the centre for people on the outskirts just don't care enough about it compared to their big needs, like new interchanges. Let them pay for that if they want it, by going and living in Sherwood park or St Albert, we can focus on recycling mature neighborhoods, and filling the many gaps within our existing footprint.

etownboarder
02-06-2010, 10:54 AM
Don't forget that Strathcona County has a large number of refineries etc within their borders between Sherwood Park and the City of Edmonton. If you amalgamate Sherwood Park with Edmonton, you're not going to exclude the industry in between both cities, are you? Adding the industrial tax base to the City of Edmonton would be the biggest benefit of amalgamating with Sherwood Park. I realize this is exactly what Strathcona County is afraid of, but it's the right thing to do IMO.

abaka
02-06-2010, 11:07 AM
^^OK, what moahunter says there I agree with.

sundance
02-06-2010, 11:11 AM
Most of this discussion should be in the following section
Regional Co-operation
http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=29

Ask yourself if 50 people can't agree on this forum, then why would you expect 1 million citizens in the area to agree?

Getting back on topic which is the LRT east to Sherwood Park, unfortunately Sherwood Park's growth model seems less dense, plus no corridors seem to be allocated, one could have had belts extending most of the E/W through by now.
Some of the future plans like Emerald Hills seem reasonably dense enough to support LRT.

Edmcowboy11
26-06-2010, 07:38 PM
I hope that sometime strathcona county planners think it would be good to be involved in the LRT system. St.Albert has already stepped up to the plate, so it's time that Sherwood Park step up too.

The_Cat
26-06-2010, 10:13 PM
Strathcona County had a survey for riders in May and June, and many of the responses indicated an interest in LRT.

I hope that the county can follow up with this.

Edmcowboy11
27-06-2010, 01:39 PM
Well that is a positive step if many are indicating an interest in the LRT.

abaka
27-06-2010, 02:06 PM
I am against any LRT system built to Sherwood Park from Edmonton, or vice versa.

norwoodguy
27-06-2010, 03:07 PM
I am against any LRT system built to Sherwood Park from Edmonton, or vice versa.

So if Strathcona County built a LRT to Edmonton city limits you would be against that?

The_Cat
27-06-2010, 05:13 PM
I'm not, given that Baseline Road is an established right-of-way, and that the LRT could be built to 34 Street.

Edmcowboy11
27-06-2010, 08:38 PM
Well just remember, by having LRT to Sherwood Park, they are not promoting sprawl, they are just connecting what is already there.

grish
27-06-2010, 09:19 PM
I would like to see Wye/ Shwd Pk Frwy/ 82 ave to gateway to rail ROW in Old Strath to the existing LRT bridge to make a high floor tech line from St. Albert to the Park and one from Clareview to EIA looking long term.

kkozoriz
27-06-2010, 09:39 PM
That's unlikely as the downtown connector will be low floor and will be running along Whyte to Bonnie Doon from the University or Old Strathcona, depending on routing.

The problem with the line running down Shwd Pk Fwy is that the new growth is along the northern edge of the Park. I'd branch off the MWLRT line at 85th st and run north to 101 ave. run along Baseline Road to Sherwood Drive and terminate at Festival Place. Covers more of Sherwood Park and the Capilano area as well. If you run down the freeway there's not much past 75th st. and when you get to the park it's more complicated to get to the centre of town.

Edmcowboy11
27-06-2010, 11:17 PM
Definitely a route that would travel past Capilano Mall would work.

abaka
28-06-2010, 12:10 PM
A Coliseum/Capilano/Bonnie Doon/Argyll/Southgate/WEM loop is something to think about long and hard for the mid/distant future.

But municipally-run rail transit across municipality boundaries is a nightmare.

kkozoriz
28-06-2010, 02:45 PM
I couuld see a line in the (far) future running from 34th st west along the LRT ROW past Mill Woods, west along 23rd ave to Terwillegar and then, somewhere, crossing to run up Lessard rd/178 st to WEM.

The_Cat
19-10-2010, 07:46 PM
With Osinchuk elected as Strathcona County Mayor, I'm looking forward to seeing upcoming plans for the LRT to Sherwood Park.

Edmcowboy11
20-10-2010, 10:57 AM
Well hopefully Sherwood Park will be smart enough and ambitious enough to want LRT and to make things happen out that way.

SteveB
20-10-2010, 11:09 AM
Well hopefully Sherwood Park will be smart enough and ambitious enough to want LRT and to make things happen out that way.

That was one of the, now I can say it, mayor's platforms. "LRT to Strathcona sooner rather than later". It will not happen overnight but there is now a willingness to work together and I can see Sherwood Park working on their ROW within a few years to ensure the land is available when construction is ready to begin.

incubo nero
20-10-2010, 11:26 AM
The most sensible route is a branch off of the Bonnie Doon-Millwoods line to the Wye Road Transit Centre. No intersections past 71 st. Local feeder routes would then continue service to Sherwood Park's "core".

The many, many street lights along Baseline could pose construction challenges and an increase in traffic-related violence.

sundance
20-10-2010, 12:26 PM
Well hopefully Sherwood Park will be smart enough and ambitious enough to want LRT and to make things happen out that way.

Don't bet on it, you're talking an administration which seems to think an infinite amount of strip malls are a good idea. And more traffic lights then on Jasper Avenue (almost).

kkozoriz
20-10-2010, 12:56 PM
The most sensible route is a branch off of the Bonnie Doon-Millwoods line to the Wye Road Transit Centre. No intersections past 71 st. Local feeder routes would then continue service to Sherwood Park's "core".

The many, many street lights along Baseline could pose construction challenges and an increase in traffic-related violence.

The growth in Sherwood Park will be north of Baseline Road. Better to split off the Millwoods line to 101 ave and down Baseline to Strathcona Station and then south to Festival Way. Perhaps if the LRT causes traffic problems due to the lights more people will opt to take the train. Which should have priority, a car with 1-2 people or a trainload?

SteveB
20-10-2010, 02:18 PM
Baseline makes sense, especially with a possible additional station near Millennium Place. Not sure how expensive it will be to widen baseline all the way into the city....maybe just get rid of a lane to encourage more people to take the train.

incubo nero
20-10-2010, 02:22 PM
The growth in Sherwood Park will be north of Baseline Road. Better to split off the Millwoods line to 101 ave and down Baseline to Strathcona Station and then south to Festival Way. Perhaps if the LRT causes traffic problems due to the lights more people will opt to take the train. Which should have priority, a car with 1-2 people or a trainload?


My opinion is based on the notion that the line will terminate at the boundary (in which case Wye Road TC is better located) with local feeder routes doing the rest of the work. In other words, replacing the #401 and #404 routes.

I believe that the extension from approx. Bonnie Doon to Wye Road TC has fewer physical impediments than a 101 Ave route. I don't see that being an issue though if for some reason, the City of Edmonton extends the LRT East to Capilano Mall.

abaka
20-10-2010, 02:41 PM
It's a loser proposition unless the County of Strathcona secures funding for everything east of the last Edmonton stop. That border is not going to move, so the suburbanites had better pay for connexion rights.

sundance
20-10-2010, 03:21 PM
It's a loser proposition unless the County of Strathcona secures funding for everything east of the last Edmonton stop. That border is not going to move, so the suburbanites had better pay for connexion rights.

Should Edmonton pay most for the bus service to the airport? They are using more then Nisku. Should Edmontonians pay Strathcona County or MD Sturgean for use of the roads to other refineries? Or Leduc County for taking highway 2 to Nisku?

Plus how do you divide up provincial and federal funding? It is precisely for this reason why we have a regional board, to address this things.

incubo nero
20-10-2010, 03:27 PM
^^ Whatever consideration is being made for LRT extension to St. Albert should be applied in this case as well. The Regional Board shall conquer all.

kkozoriz
20-10-2010, 06:40 PM
The growth in Sherwood Park will be north of Baseline Road. Better to split off the Millwoods line to 101 ave and down Baseline to Strathcona Station and then south to Festival Way. Perhaps if the LRT causes traffic problems due to the lights more people will opt to take the train. Which should have priority, a car with 1-2 people or a trainload?


My opinion is based on the notion that the line will terminate at the boundary (in which case Wye Road TC is better located) with local feeder routes doing the rest of the work. In other words, replacing the #401 and #404 routes.

I believe that the extension from approx. Bonnie Doon to Wye Road TC has fewer physical impediments than a 101 Ave route. I don't see that being an issue though if for some reason, the City of Edmonton extends the LRT East to Capilano Mall.

A Whyte avenue route doesn't really help Edmonton though since there's no real reason for a station on Whyte east of Bonnie Doon. A line running along Baseline could have a couple of Edmonton stops. If Strathcona wanted to pay for the whole line to Bonnie Doon then go for the Bonnie Doon/Wye Road line.

Edmcowboy11
20-10-2010, 07:04 PM
Well I don't see Strathcona county paying for a train route within the city. I still think the most likely place to branch off the LRT is after the Strathern Station. Head to Capilano Mall from there and then at that point travel into Sherwood Park.