PDA

View Full Version : Metro Line | NAIT to St Albert | Conceptual Discussion



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5

geordieinthecity
24-11-2008, 01:22 PM
Does any one know any plans or concepts for the LRT past NAIT? As in to Northgate or to Castledowns, anything like that.

Thanks!

Medwards
24-11-2008, 01:22 PM
St Albert

davidnorwoodink
24-11-2008, 02:22 PM
^ Ultimately. I think the future of this route depends on the decision about closing the City Centre Airport and a World's Fair.

Glenco
24-11-2008, 03:05 PM
^The NAIT station will only be a temporary station for that reason.

highlander
24-11-2008, 10:15 PM
^Also so NAIT can develop a master plan for the station to fit into.

Medwards
24-11-2008, 11:00 PM
naits masterplan is dependent on YXD decision

ChrisD
25-11-2008, 12:27 AM
Well, the City should be selecting the NWLRT team within the next couple of days. The RFP closed a couple of weeks ago and the City was conducting interviews last week.

mark
25-11-2008, 12:45 AM
is there an expected timeline for this NWLRT past Nait? like, should we really be paying for a report that we know will be redundant in 30 yrs when it could finally become relevant?

Edmcowboy11
30-05-2009, 01:58 AM
With all the talk about LRT going on, the completion of SLRT, the planning of NLRT to NAIT, the NELRT extention to Gorman, the planning for SELRT and WLRT, I find it interesting that slowly other interested communities are starting to jump onboard the LRT train.

http://edmonton.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20090527/edm_stalbert_transit_090527/20090527/?hub=EdmontonHome

I saw this tv article the other day and I found this a significant and important step to further expanding our LRT system here in Edmonton and now the Edmonton region. The article did state that LRT to St.Albert is not on any higher priority than SELRT or WLRT but I think to me it made a very strong statement. More and more people are understanding that LRT is a very important part of transportation in the capital region and are finally starting to make our council aware that we need this now and not 50 years down the line.

It was suggested that planning/studies for a StALRT line could be started next year and construction still would be a number of years away. With that said though I am really curious as to which would be a ideal line to go out that way. Do we go towards St.Albert north from NAIT? Do we branch off from the future WLRT line? Do we build a completly seperate line leaving from the downtown core to head to St.Albert?

Funding for the StALRT would also be interesting because now you have two seperate cities building one line. Now other regions around Canada and the U.S. have done it but it is a new thing for Edmonton. I'm assuming that purhaps the Capital Regional Planning Board may need to be involved in this or is it as simple as we will built the line up to our border and they build the LRT lines into and throughout St.Albert themselves?

Even though we are in a very preliminary stage of this new direction that LRT is desired I think it is great to hear as hopefully this will only continue to push Edmonton city council, and now St.Albert city council to want LRT planning and construction continue to grow and grow.

moahunter
30-05-2009, 07:16 AM
St Albert has always been the ultimate justification for the NAIT line. There isn't good access from downtown to St Albert (unlike Sherwood Park), so an LRT line will do very well to there. When you tie in that it will benefit Castledowns, and take a ton of traffic off the roads, I think it has always been seen as a good ultimate goal. I would presume St Albert would pay the cost from Castledowns.

Medwards
30-05-2009, 11:37 AM
You would think what moahunter is saying is true, but consider that sherwood park and st albert are relatively the same size, yet Sherwood Park has double the transit riders? I think a line out to sherwood park would be just as supported as st albert, if not more.

moahunter
30-05-2009, 11:40 AM
^I was surprised to learn that recently - you might be right. And, if Millwoods gets built next after NAIT per Mandel (who rarely mentions WLRT), then Sherwood Park would be an easy / short link (depending on the Millwoods route).

edmonton daily photo
31-05-2009, 05:59 PM
Does the Park have more transit ridders, because their current commuter system is beter than saint albert, or is it because St Albert is anti Transit.. Ridership numbers only give you part of the picture.

moahunter
01-06-2009, 11:47 AM
^I was thinking as well - maybe the reason Sherwood Park is higher, is that transit actually works better, because of the better access to Edmonton. A bus from Sherwood Park to downtown Edmonton, must be reasonably quick and pleasent, whereas I expect a bus from St Albert to Edmonton downtown is stuck in slow moving traffic most of the way. In this respect, LRT from St Albert to downtown Edmonton could exceed expectations on ridership, as for the first time ever, there would be a good link in.

edmonton daily photo
01-06-2009, 11:48 AM
I would GUESS that the Park also has more duel income households. thusly more commuting.

I am pulling that one right out of my bottom though.

etownboarder
01-06-2009, 12:33 PM
I had a summer job in St. Albert a couple years ago at Athabasca University's Centre for Innovative Management and took the bus from Canada Place (only a couple blocks from my front door) right to the front door of my office building at Grandin Mall. It was extremely convenient and very fast. The reason the service was so fast is that the buses from St. Albert don't make many stops at all. They only stop at maybe 6-8 bus stops from downtown before getting to St. Albert.

Aaronf
01-06-2009, 08:59 PM
^^^I live and grew up in St. Albert (took the bus to university for 7 years) and have considered taking the bus, but the service isn't great after 5. If I miss the bus around 5:15 from around Canada Place, the next one near there is close to 6. I think I would take LRT from St. Albert to downtown if the frequency is still pretty high after 5. I think that it definitely be faster in the winter.

Doppelganger
02-06-2009, 12:20 PM
You would think what moahunter is saying is true, but consider that sherwood park and st albert are relatively the same size, yet Sherwood Park has double the transit riders? I think a line out to sherwood park would be just as supported as st albert, if not more.

My dark side says that St. Albert is being touted as an LRT destination as a reward for being more collcaboratively involved in the greater Edmonton regional council (or whatever it's called!) than Strathcona County has been. Perhaps a message is being sent that there are benefits to getting along.

Edmcowboy11
02-06-2009, 01:12 PM
Well wouldn't that be interesting if that is the case, cooperation is a good thing. Maybe that will help give the regional board more teeth.

etownboarder
02-06-2009, 03:39 PM
^^^I live and grew up in St. Albert (took the bus to university for 7 years) and have considered taking the bus, but the service isn't great after 5. If I miss the bus around 5:15 from around Canada Place, the next one near there is close to 6. I think I would take LRT from St. Albert to downtown if the frequency is still pretty high after 5. I think that it definitely be faster in the winter.

You're right... after 5 the service is pretty bad. I remember missing my bus once, and having to walk up to the main southern transit centre to catch one of the last buses into Edmonton. I almost got stranded.

TrevorK
03-06-2009, 09:42 AM
It was mentioned earlier that there are other regions that have a 'shared' LRT concept between two cities. I'm curious is anyone knows how well that worked out?

One downside I see is that, is Edmonton making it easier for people to live in St. Albert (and spend their dollars there) because the commute to work in Edmonton is quick/easy?


St Albert seems to benefit the most - their tax base will increase, which means that the business that thrive on "everyday" business will have increased revenue as well.

Overall, I think it's a good plan - decreasing the traffic on the roadways will reduce maintenance costs/emissions/etc.... However, I am a little concerned if Edmonton is to pay the lion's share of this expansion.

KenL
03-06-2009, 10:27 PM
I would GUESS that the Park also has more duel income households. thusly more commuting.

I am pulling that one right out of my bottom though.

Yeah that would be true, pulling it out of your butt,

The two are neck and neck in the income numbers so that idea is out the window!!

moahunter
04-06-2009, 09:07 AM
^That's my understanding as well - both locations are among the richest parts of the greater Edmonton area.

Edmonton PRT
04-06-2009, 09:38 AM
You would think what moahunter is saying is true, but consider that sherwood park and st albert are relatively the same size, yet Sherwood Park has double the transit riders? I think a line out to sherwood park would be just as supported as st albert, if not more.

My dark side says that St. Albert is being touted as an LRT destination as a reward for being more collcaboratively involved in the greater Edmonton regional council (or whatever it's called!) than Strathcona County has been. Perhaps a message is being sent that there are benefits to getting along.

That would mean we are trying to buy influence with LRT paid for with taxpayers money.


In the words of Henry Kissinger; "The United States does not have friends, it only has interests."

Medwards
04-06-2009, 09:45 AM
^ right.

(note the sarcasm)

Cleisthenis
14-07-2009, 12:13 PM
Now that we are going to be closing the ECCA for redevelopment, I think that we can justify planning for the NAIT line to be a true north extension all the way up the 97th Street corridor, and a 2nd NW line to St. Albert. If the SE/NW planning weren't separate processes the logical thing to do would be to select one of the two SE HLB routes and then connect to MacEwan, the Municipal Lands, Yellowhead JCT and St. Albert at grade via 110th street and Railtown Park from Grandin:

http://is.gd/1yI0t

etownboarder
14-07-2009, 12:15 PM
Who said anything about two north lines? It has always been up for discussion here on C2E, but the city has maintained that the line will head to St. Albert.

Cleisthenis
14-07-2009, 12:43 PM
Who said anything about two north lines? It has always been up for discussion here on C2E, but the city has maintained that the line will head to St. Albert.

I don't believe there's been any analysis, study, or decisions to that end however. The zeitgeist at city hall is there to send it NW, but the whole reason they stopped short with the temp. NAIT station is that they don't know for sure which way it'll go north.

etownboarder
14-07-2009, 12:45 PM
Yes, but they have also stated that the line will end in St. Albert... they're just not sure of the route in between NAIT and St. Albert.

moahunter
14-07-2009, 12:53 PM
Who said anything about two north lines? It has always been up for discussion here on C2E, but the city has maintained that the line will head to St. Albert.
I agree - it wouldn't seem right to have three lines North (existing, 97, St Albert), 1 West, 1 East, and 2 South (SLRT, and Millwoods). Aside from on this board, I haven't seem anything suggesting another North line beyond NAIT, for a very long time, at least until the six main legs are complete (West, East, St Albert, Millwoods, plus existing 2).

Cleisthenis
14-07-2009, 12:57 PM
Sigh... I know people have stated it, but my point is that it's not been a result of any formal decision making processes. The fact is the best use of that line to serve north edmonton is straight up the middle along 97th street. I don't think it's too late to push for that. If there's one thing I've learned from the ECCA campaign, it's that nothing is written in stone.

Cleisthenis
14-07-2009, 01:00 PM
Who said anything about two north lines? It has always been up for discussion here on C2E, but the city has maintained that the line will head to St. Albert.
I agree - it wouldn't seem right to have three lines North (existing, 97, St Albert), 1 West, 1 East, and 2 South (SLRT, and Millwoods). Aside from on this board, I haven't seem anything suggesting another North line beyond NAIT, for a very long time, at least until the six main legs are complete (West, East, St Albert, Millwoods, plus existing 2).

Have you seen a map of Edmonton lately moa?

NW - N - NE
W - E
SW - S - SE

That's four LRT lines. I think that closing the Muni alone, nevermind the new MDP/TMP policies can justify building 4 lines over the next 30 years.

highlander
14-07-2009, 04:15 PM
I agree. The existing traffic pattern and transit passenger flow maps make it clear that 97st is the better destination for NLRT beyond NAIT. I suspect that when NLRT gets to NAIT most North end buses will be rerouted to connect to LRT at Kingsway to artificilly boost LRT numbers (why else would kingsway station have such a huge bus station, and why else would they need a 4 lane 106st?). Once 10,000 daily riders up 97st are connecting to NLRT they will demand that NLRT continue their way- otherwise NLRT will only be going far enough north to be a nuisance.

The other reason that I fully support planning a NW LRT line in addition to the N line is that the 121st and 142st ROWs are just begging for LRT.

Cleisthenis
14-07-2009, 11:53 PM
I agree. The existing traffic pattern and transit passenger flow maps make it clear that 97st is the better destination for NLRT beyond NAIT. I suspect that when NLRT gets to NAIT most North end buses will be rerouted to connect to LRT at Kingsway to artificilly boost LRT numbers (why else would kingsway station have such a huge bus station, and why else would they need a 4 lane 106st?). Once 10,000 daily riders up 97st are connecting to NLRT they will demand that NLRT continue their way- otherwise NLRT will only be going far enough north to be a nuisance.

The other reason that I fully support planning a NW LRT line in addition to the N line is that the 121st and 142st ROWs are just begging for LRT.

These are just my three proposed high-floor/commuter style LRT lines which are forming the backbone of my alternative 100 year LRT proposal (http://www.getsthere.com) ... not shown are my East/West(north option) and Mill Woods to St. Albert low-floor urban LRT lines...


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)

Medwards
15-07-2009, 08:14 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.

Cleisthenis
15-07-2009, 08:27 AM
Medwards, note the Homesteader TOD and the fact that the primary purpose of this line isn't to serve east edmonton, but to connect the new 250,000 plus person community that's being planned northeast of sherwood park...

danimalrex
15-07-2009, 08:39 AM
Belvedere station is only about 10 blocks from where the Homesteader site is. Do we really need another LRT station that close in that part of the city?

Medwards
15-07-2009, 08:41 AM
Well, I don't agree with that route. But leta discuss that in the proper thread... I've already moved my comments there.

*Note* both the images you have put in this thread have nothing to do with the topic at hand. NAIT to St Albert.

Cleisthenis
15-07-2009, 09:10 AM
Belvedere station is only about 10 blocks from where the Homesteader site is. Do we really need another LRT station that close in that part of the city?

Take it to the Sherwood Park thread if you like danimalrex.

Medwards: Both of the images show the Silver (NAIT) line in context of the other high-floor routes in my proposal ... read the few comments after my initial post. This is really about a discussion of whether the NAIT line should go to St. Albert at all or serve North Edmonton.

sdimedru
22-09-2009, 11:07 AM
Sigh... I know people have stated it, but my point is that it's not been a result of any formal decision making processes. The fact is the best use of that line to serve north edmonton is straight up the middle along 97th street. I don't think it's too late to push for that. If there's one thing I've learned from the ECCA campaign, it's that nothing is written in stone.

I kind of agree with this post.... but where would the line go?
-can't afford to take lanes away from 97st
-101st maybe?
-I'm guessing alot of homes/businesses would have to be bought up

I would love the idea of a line right up 97st area, after all the castledowns area is what 70 blocks from Clareview?

moahunter
22-09-2009, 11:29 AM
I would love the idea of a line right up 97st area, after all the castledowns area is what 70 blocks from Clareview?
So Castledowns shouldn't get service because it is a long way away from Clareview? Why do lines have to be close together - isn't it good if we get more "area" coverage so buses can feed into LRT from more parts of the City?

I think another North line might be great one day, but more south lines would be great to, and we haven't even built one West or East line yet. One step at a time. I think St Albert and Sherwood Park though, being right on the City border, make too much sense to not happen (even if my preference is for WEM-Millwoods first, but then I'm biased living in the West). Esp. as the lines get closer when I think residents in those Cities / Hamlets (or whatever they call themselves) might be willing to pony up to get the "extension".

sdimedru
22-09-2009, 11:49 AM
I would love the idea of a line right up 97st area, after all the castledowns area is what 70 blocks from Clareview?
So Castledowns shouldn't get service because it is a long way away from Clareview? Why do lines have to be close together - isn't it good if we get more "area" coverage so buses can feed into LRT from more parts of the City?

I think another North line might be great one day, but more south lines would be great to, and we haven't even built one West or East line yet. One step at a time. I think St Albert and Sherwood Park though, being right on the City border, make too much sense to not happen (even if my preference is for WEM-Millwoods first, but then I'm biased living in the West). Esp. as the lines get closer when I think residents in those Cities / Hamlets (or whatever they call themselves) might be willing to pony up to get the "extension".


Maybe I confused yah, I think there absolutely should be service to the Castledowns (North Edm) area... I live there, and its a long drive to the CV train station...

Edmcowboy11
01-10-2009, 11:16 AM
I think we can look at the possibility of having a branch line with NAIT as a northern hub. We can have the NWLRT line go to St. Albert and then we have a NLRT to northgate and maybe all the way to the Garrison.

highlander
01-10-2009, 11:16 PM
How about serving St. Albert (and more) via the 121 st ROW as a branch of a low floor SPR WLRT, and NLRT can go north, to Northgate, as it should.

Edmcowboy11
16-10-2009, 11:48 AM
Well I would rather have LRT branch on this NLRT line just because there is maybe better chance of it getting built sooner than later.

edmonton daily photo
16-10-2009, 11:57 AM
St Albert is preparing for LRT.

I wonder where they are expecting to put their portion of the line?

Edmcowboy11
16-10-2009, 12:09 PM
That would be quite interesting to see, is there any room remaining around St.Albert trail to head into the valley?

highlander
16-10-2009, 10:54 PM
Well I would rather have LRT branch on this NLRT line just because there is maybe better chance of it getting built sooner than later.

If WLRT is lowfloor as is currently proposed then I expect that momentum will be to build out the low-floor before completing the highfloor system. A branch off WLRT at 121st and north from there would be as cheap as rail transit ever could be, and having the airport lands bracketed by two LRT lines and 4 stations would be better than being bisected by a highfloor line.

And if WLRT is highfloor down 87ave, then millwoods LRT will need somewhere to go on the other end, and St. Albert is the perfect fit.

highlander
16-10-2009, 11:03 PM
That would be quite interesting to see, is there any room remaining around St.Albert trail to head into the valley?

The cheap option would be a station on the outskirts, either near village landing or by servus centre where it would be potentially useful to some edmontonians. If St' Albert has a few hundred million to blow I would expect to see it in the median of st. albert trail. there would be very little landscaped buffer left for the neighbourhoods, though, and I dont' see them sacrificing any traffic lanes on an already busy road, except perhaps a few sections where it's 8 lanes. Whatever they would do, the intersection at McKinney could end up with even longer wait times for lights than university ave.

sundance
17-10-2009, 10:51 AM
I think the long term plan for AB Transportation is to divert highway 2 around the west side of St. Albert, this would reduce some traffic along St. Albert trail making the median more viable for LRT.

highlander
17-10-2009, 08:55 PM
Ray gibbon drive is the first stage of the 'west regional road, once called the west bypass, and it will eventually rejoin highway 2 north of the city, but I think that it's unlikely to substantially reduce traffic on St Albert Road. Those who want to go west already take highway 37 to the villenueve highway. Just like on highway 2 south of the city, not a whole lot of the traffic on the trail is long distance. It's mostly St. Albertans going to Edmonton, or travelling within St. Albert.

edmonton daily photo
23-10-2009, 10:10 AM
LRT EXTENSIONS Proj: 9059400-13 Edmonton, Division No 11 AB PREPARING PLANSNorth LRT Extension, from downtown to NAIT

$600,000,000 est

Note:Invited Request for Proposal (915657) for Prime Consulting Services for Project Management, Detailed Design and Construction Engineering has recently been awarded. Design, tender and construction schedules have yet to be determined. Further update early 2010.

Project: Proposed LRT extensions including three new stations (MacEwan Station, Kingsway Station and a temporary NAIT Station). Development:EngineeringCategory:Tunnels, subways; Passenger terminals

moahunter
23-10-2009, 10:15 AM
^we are back to a temporary station for NAIT? Very confusing.

edmonton daily photo
23-10-2009, 10:23 AM
We were always going to have a temp nait station..I don't think that ever changed

etownboarder
23-10-2009, 10:32 AM
I think moahunter is referring to the change in alignment... heading through the Edmonton City Centre Airport lands.

moahunter
23-10-2009, 10:36 AM
^I think I'm just getting confused / wrong perhaps (far from the first time). I had thought maybe by the time it got out to NAIT, it could be a permanent station, but I guess that's not the case.

noodle
23-10-2009, 11:00 AM
I think the permanent station would be built at the time that the expansion in the immediate area is completed. Isn't that the plan with Health Sciences & the Edmonton Clinic?

etownboarder
23-10-2009, 11:07 AM
Health Sciences is a permanents station is it not? I don't think any changes are going to be made.

DanC
23-10-2009, 01:45 PM
Health Sciences has some roughed in provisions for escalators and elevators for pedways I was told.

moahunter
23-10-2009, 02:25 PM
^I hope they keep it that way, and don't finish it. I like that "temporary" station better than the "permanent" ones, no need to mess around going up and down escalators and similar.

Medwards
23-10-2009, 03:35 PM
Moahunter... These escalators and elevators would be used to connect to the pedways that will link the 2 portions Edmonton Clinic and University of Alberta Hospital together. You will still have the same access from the sidewalk as you do now.

moahunter
23-10-2009, 03:46 PM
^Are you sure? If so, that would be an "enhancement" (although no doubt an expensive one, but I guess the clinic will need to be linked for medical reasons).

Often when a pedway or tunnel goes in though, the street grade pedestrian crossing / access goes (to make "safer" for pedeistrians or allow traffic to travel faster). I think the station works really well in its current state, I like being able to simply walk over the tracks and cross to the main entrance of the hospital.

edmonton daily photo
23-10-2009, 03:53 PM
this is the Nait thread..

;-)

highlander
23-10-2009, 03:55 PM
^we are back to a temporary station for NAIT? Very confusing.

The problem is that the new temporary station is in a worse location (at least, temporarily until the airport is redeveloped), farther from most nait students and less accessible from the nearby neighbourhoods, all just to send a signal that the airport closing is inevitable. You won't ever see a cost for this because the original NAIT proposal was over budgeted, but make no mistake- this will cost millions more than the original proposal, along with affecting traffic on princes elizabeth ave, and being less accessible.

If we need so badly to send a signal on the airport then 5 or 10 million to upgrade the Villenueve airport, or for relocation assistance would be far more productive.

jstock
14-11-2009, 06:33 PM
So is any hope for LRT to Northgate dead?

richardW
14-11-2009, 08:09 PM
^hope for lrt anywhere is dead.

Solaris
15-11-2009, 11:32 AM
^hope for lrt anywhere is dead.


I am trying not to loose hope...Things look really bad atm. but We need to regroup! We need to contact council and keep the conversation about LRT expansion and sustainability put back on the table. THis is not rocket science folks. Other Large cities are doing it. We just need to work hard to keep LRT and sustainability on the agenda

etownboarder
15-11-2009, 08:09 PM
^hope for lrt anywhere is dead.


I am trying not to loose hope...Things look really bad atm. but We need to regroup! We need to contact council and keep the conversation about LRT expansion and sustainability put back on the table. THis is not rocket science folks. Other Large cities are doing it. We just need to work hard to keep LRT and sustainability on the agenda

I sent an email to all councillors and the mayor and received some positive responses. LRT isn't dead.

graham
15-11-2009, 08:25 PM
I sent an email to all councillors and the mayor and received some positive responses. LRT isn't dead.

They're sinking it with good intentions. They've got a good thing going because the way they're keeping the bill from passing leaves no one accountable for it. Endless half steps that never go anywhere. New options that are actually old endlessly recycled.

If you have hope at this point, I'm impressed.

jstock
08-12-2009, 03:18 PM
http://atcityhall.blogspot.com/2009/12/lrt-tax-levy-derails.html


LRT tax levy derails
City council was not on board for an idea to create a new tax levy for an LRT line to St. Albert.

Coun. Len Bracko asked for council's support Monday for the LRT levy scheme, which would have charged property owners $1 per $100,000 of assessment and shown up as a separate levy on tax notices starting in 2010.

The idea would have meant an extra $4 in municipal taxes for a home worth $400,000. Citywide, the levy would have generated less than $100,000 — money Bracko said should be put into a reserve until an LRT line to St. Albert is viable.

Bracko understood the levy would have generated modest revenues, but argued its mere existence would send a strong message to the provincial and federal governments that the city is serious about LRT.

jstock
09-02-2010, 05:43 PM
NW LRT beyond NAIT has made it's way into the concept phase.

Edmcowboy11
09-02-2010, 08:37 PM
^That's good, but where has it made it's way into the concept phase, any official announcements?

jstock
10-02-2010, 01:39 PM
http://photos.edmonton.ca/photos/784865440_dGKMt-M.jpg
http://photos.edmonton.ca/photos/784865405_a5cc7-M.jpg
http://photos.edmonton.ca/photos/784863716_smrAU-M.jpg

jstock
10-02-2010, 01:41 PM
I personally like the St. Albert Trail corridor...it seems the fastest and it would have the easiest time crossing the CN tracks.
BUT-if Edmonton is paying for this, to what extent should it serve the communities of Edmonton over just a quick trip to the suburbs of St. Albert...?

RTA
10-02-2010, 01:55 PM
127 St. is probably best suited for LRT. Lots of density already there, and lots potential for new, higher-density infill. LRT could help revitalize the commercial sections of it as well; I've always thought it could be a neat little neighborhood with some care and attention.

Edmcowboy11
10-02-2010, 01:57 PM
I personally like the St. Albert Trail corridor...it seems the fastest and it would have the easiest time crossing the CN tracks.
BUT-if Edmonton is paying for this, to what extent should it serve the communities of Edmonton over just a quick trip to the suburbs of St. Albert...?

Well if St. Albert pays to get LRT into St.Albert then that is fine. If it terminates at the city border but we can see a substantial drop in traffic past the park n ride then that can be a big positve too as there is a massive amount of traffic that comes out of St.Albert.

moahunter
10-02-2010, 02:12 PM
The Southern St Albert trail option looks neat. Whatever route though, taking autos of St Albert trail will be a good benefit.

parker
10-02-2010, 03:26 PM
^ South St. A Trail for speed, but I think the 127th has the largest potential for new riders ... plus I like how it cuts through 137th to get to retail there.

moahunter
10-02-2010, 03:29 PM
^It might be neat for the new communities around box stores (e.g. Leons, etc.). It would be nice for the older lower income communities on 127as well though, or St Albert Trail if it went that way.

kkozoriz
10-02-2010, 03:30 PM
Don't like the 137 ave option at all.

St. Albert Trail seems to be suited mostly to St. Albert. Not a lot f benefit to Edmonton there.

126 St or 113A looks best to me. If we go up 127 to 153 ave I'd accept that whole heartedly. Also, it's far enough from 97 st to allow a future line up that way.
'

moahunter
10-02-2010, 03:33 PM
^an advantage of 113 is it would be close enough to service 97, without needing an extra LRT line.

sundance
10-02-2010, 03:43 PM
Umm not too many people would want to walk a mile to 113th street from either 127th Street or 97th street.

moahunter
10-02-2010, 03:44 PM
^it would be a very short bus hop.

Medwards
10-02-2010, 03:48 PM
^ Unless your in terwilligar... a short bus is not do-able?

moahunter
10-02-2010, 03:50 PM
^last time I looked, Windermere / Terwillegar was more than a mile from South Campus.

sundance
10-02-2010, 03:56 PM
Not to mention the NAIT, St Albert line will probably NOT stop at Terwillegar (one never knows the future though)

Medwards
10-02-2010, 04:10 PM
^last time I looked, Windermere / Terwillegar was more than a mile from South Campus.

Windermere is about a 5 minute ride from Heritage Valley future LRT station.

Medwards
10-02-2010, 04:10 PM
Not to mention the NAIT, St Albert line will probably NOT stop at Terwillegar (one never knows the future though)

I was cross-posting. I'm sure you realized this, but needed to make a funny?

moahunter
10-02-2010, 04:11 PM
Looks like the line will be a more "urban style" one:

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/City+seeks+input+NAIT+routes/2546843/story.html


"This isn’t something we will be suggesting will be built tomorrow. We’re doing some long-term planning,” he told a news conference.

He estimated the cost of the lines, which range from eight to 10 kilometres long, would be about $1.5 billion.

While they would use the existing high-floor trains rather than the low-floor cars set for the new west and southeast routes, Laughlin said tracks embedded in concrete rather than gravel and other features would provide an urban feel.

Medwards
10-02-2010, 04:13 PM
what this? High floor can do the same thing as low floor? OHHHH MMMMMM GEEEEEE

sundance
10-02-2010, 04:29 PM
Medwards yes I realize that you were being sarcastic.

Urban feel - (n) of or pertaining to the cost of a project doubling or tripling when compared to other similar projects in differing urban areas.

moahunter
10-02-2010, 04:50 PM
^I thought it is simply a code word meaning not building all the big barriers and similar like the SLRT - i.e. doing it much cheaper like other cities have. In writing that, $1.5 billion doesn't look that cheap when compared to WLRT / Millwoods, high floor seems to just be costly, period.

Low floor is a separate issue - it simply an even cheaper system that is more accessable for disabled and seniors (as no concrete raised platforms required for stations), with sexier looking trains.

Medwards
10-02-2010, 05:02 PM
'cheaper' is debatable. I have yet to see anyone provide even a morsal of proof that high floor or low floor is cheaper than each other. Considering both can do the 'urban feel' what ever that means. Both could or could do with out all the barriers of the SLRT.

Again, I'll repeat what I've repeated here many many times - its not if its high floor or low floor, its how we design everything else that provides the cost differences...

high floor and low floor can both intregrate in to the community very well, or very badly. It's all in the application of it.

edmonton daily photo
10-02-2010, 05:21 PM
I would like to see the 127 option that goes down 118 ave first...

It would spur redevelopment of the Charles Camsell Hospital site.

lightrail
10-02-2010, 05:46 PM
Medwards yes I realize that you were being sarcastic.

Urban feel - (n) of or pertaining to the cost of a project doubling or tripling when compared to other similar projects in differing urban areas.

What's all this "urban feel" crap? What's not urban about the existing LRT? When was the last time you saw an LRT line running through a rural area?

Edmcowboy11
10-02-2010, 05:59 PM
^Well what about the LRT line that runs from Millet to Westaskwin. Ain't that an LRT? Or maybe just a really fast tractor.

edmonton daily photo
10-02-2010, 07:56 PM
Medwards yes I realize that you were being sarcastic.

Urban feel - (n) of or pertaining to the cost of a project doubling or tripling when compared to other similar projects in differing urban areas.

What's all this "urban feel" crap? What's not urban about the existing LRT? When was the last time you saw an LRT line running through a rural area?

Our current LRT is built like it's a Rural Heavy Train. With large ROW and much to much infrastructure.

Sonic Death Monkey
10-02-2010, 09:32 PM
Of the 3 options, I like 127 St the best.

Not only is there good passenger catchment through most of YXD (once developed) and the Kensington neighborhoods, but the Yellowhead crossing could be done in conjunction with an interchange. The 127 St corridor north of Yellowhead is wide enough to accommodate LRT and it has the CN underpass. It can also stop at the VIA Rail station.

And for purely selfish reasons, my dentist's office is on that route! :)

The_Cat
10-02-2010, 09:41 PM
Looking at the routes, I think that one of the two are great choices:

(1) 113 A Street - 153 Avenue - Access to Griesbach, Castle Downs and other NW Edmonton neighbourhoods. Also potential bus connections along 167, 153, 137, 132 and 127 Avenue, with minimal competition to 97 Street, 127 Street and St. Albert Trail. Potential obstacles - the bridge over the CNR tracks/Yellowhead.

(2) 127 Street-137 Avenue-St. Albert Trail - perhaps the greatest potential for development and a faster connection to the NW park and ride, while reaching more commercial areas. Great potential for new development.

Cured
10-02-2010, 09:46 PM
prefer the 113a street to 153 ave option at the moment. st.albert trl option has too little benefit for the c of e. the 127 street option will create more problems than it will solve even if you're talking about levelling all the buildings on one side of the street all the way up to 137 ave.

Sonic Death Monkey
10-02-2010, 09:56 PM
Well, if the 113 St alignment has less buildings to knock down and goes by Griesbach, Castledowns then I could bump that up as an acceptable alternative.

Alex.L
10-02-2010, 10:19 PM
I like 113 to 137 to St. Albert Trail

edmonton daily photo
10-02-2010, 10:53 PM
http://photos.edmonton.ca/photos/784865440_dGKMt-M.jpg
http://photos.edmonton.ca/photos/784865405_a5cc7-M.jpg
http://photos.edmonton.ca/photos/784863716_smrAU-M.jpg

im gonna bring these over for easy ref

kkozoriz
11-02-2010, 05:32 AM
113A would be my first choice. Like the stop at Grand Trunk. Covers the most residential area.

Isn't there supposed to be a high school built next to the Castle Down arena?

127 st would be my second choice. It would be a better choice for allowing a future low floor line up 97 st to Northgate & on to the Lake District.

The St. Albert Trail line just doesn't provide enough coverage to the residential areas of Edmonton. It's essentially a commuter line for St. Albert.

graham
11-02-2010, 07:13 AM
113St looks like it could still work if, god forbid, the Airport shutdown gets stalled indefinitely. With minimal modification, anyways. The others become much tighter turns if they have to work around it.

sundance
11-02-2010, 08:56 AM
Sure there are less buildings to knock down on 113A Street, because for the most part it is single family, and two story condominiums, it has far less density then 97th or 127th streets.
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=53.591333,-113.509498&spn=0.01401,0.044074&t=h&z=15

Some better options are median of 97th median of 127th or widen the old rail corridor on 103rd Street.

kkozoriz
11-02-2010, 09:49 AM
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&ll=53.602692,-113.499584&spn=0.081081,0.196896&z=13&msid=108343013799410208037.00047f55f000494b4fbb8

The problem with the rail corridor is getting to it. You'd have to swing west of NAIT to the stop indicated for the middle of the airport and then all the way over to about 103 st. The rail cut then moves west until it hits 137 ave at about 106 st. Then you have to turn west to go through Greisbach or east to Nothgate. It's a pretty wavy route.

RTA
11-02-2010, 12:14 PM
One thing I noticed from the cool Google Maps overlay created by hatrock in this thread (http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=15969) is that where the LRT is proposed to run along 153 Ave., it appears to follow the roadway, but the map also shows a powerline ROW right nearby, and passing right close to what look like several apartment complexes. I realize these are conceptual, but I wonder if there is enough space in the ROW for a set of rails beside the electrical towers, and if its possible to operate LRT within that ROW without interference.

Just thought I'd throw that out there.

moahunter
11-02-2010, 01:53 PM
^if autos can fit through, presumably the LRT could (i.e. isn't this going to take lanes)?

RTA
11-02-2010, 02:17 PM
^ Not sure what you mean. I'm refering to the greenspace along the powerline ROW just south of 153 Ave:

<iframe width="425" height="350" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" src="http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;hq=&amp;hnear=Edmonton,+Division+No .+11,+Alberta&amp;ll=53.615321,-113.543358&amp;spn=0.023777,0.065489&amp;t=h&amp;z=14&amp;output=e mbed"></iframe><br /><small><a href="http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;hq=&amp;hnear=Edmonton,+Division+No .+11,+Alberta&amp;ll=53.615321,-113.543358&amp;spn=0.023777,0.065489&amp;t=h&amp;z=14&amp;source=e mbed" style="color:#0000FF;text-align:left">View Larger Map</a></small>

The possible loss of some of that greenspace may be a concern, though, but in the end might be more beneficial for residents in the nearby apartments, might be easier to turn the LRT into given the weird curve on 153 at 127, and might require a bit less engineering work than fitting into 153 Ave. itself.

Jasper
12-02-2010, 12:06 PM
there is a great corridor, that used to be a rail line spur, that runs from 127 ave to 137 ave
between (i dont know) about 102 street and 104 street. Would tie right into the wide 137 ave r/w and griesbach.
Right now is runs behind single detached dwellings and its a bike/walking path.

http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/1709/bike.jpg (http://img717.imageshack.us/i/bike.jpg/)
http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/7026/bikex.jpg

highlander
12-02-2010, 12:21 PM
there is a great corridor, that used to be a rail line spur, that runs from 127 ave to 137 ave
between (i dont know) about 102 street and 104 street. Would tie right into the wide 137 ave r/w and griesbach.
Right now is runs behind single detached dwellings and its a bike/walking path.

http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/1709/bike.jpg (http://img717.imageshack.us/i/bike.jpg/)
http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/7026/bikex.jpg


Unfortunately that ROW is blocked at the south end by CN's new building, and it looks like a possible path through griesbach is being blocked too.

RTA
12-02-2010, 12:34 PM
Doesn't seem to run anywhere that would be a good location for stations, either.

highlander
12-02-2010, 12:38 PM
I have 3 major probles with these options.

1. A park&ride near st Albert it the goal. I undestand that St. Albert would have to get involved to extend it further, and we would like to play nice with them, but what if that parking lot (or st. Albert in general) is not the best destination for the line?

2. 97st was not inlcuded s an option. Even for a St. Albert terminus it would be tolerable, and if St. Albert is not the end goal then honestly 97 and 113 are the only options worthy of consideration.

3. This is proposed as a extension of NLRT. That's a noble goal, but the I'd prefer we asked
'what's the best way to add rapid transit in the NW'
rather than 'we have a LRT line. Where should it go?'
With WLRT proposed via SPR, the opportunity exists to plan NWLRT as a branch north on the 121st ROW. After WLRT is built a brach could be buit from 104ave up to 118 for under $100m - the ROW is there, and there are only 4 street interactions required. That would put a low floor option for the NW on pretty much equal footing with a NLRT extension. Why not look at it?

4. Why not 2 lines? We're already planning for a fairly distant future, why not at least look at the possibility, and see whether keeping the option open for another line makes sense?
The two north lines (NE and NW) have their destinations about 90degres apart. SLRT and SELRT are about 25degrees apart, and if the St. Albet trail route is chosen then from the actual north (97st area) it would be as long a trip to get to LRT, either on the NE or NW line, as it would be to go directly downtown.

moahunter
12-02-2010, 12:44 PM
but what if that parking lot (or st. Albert in general) is not the best destination for the line?
.
What do you suggest is the best end destination? A green field? I think St Albert makes sense, because:
- residents of St Albert have a big traffic impact on the NW (just take St Albert trail at rush hour)
- St Albert would presumably chip in, at least at the border, but if we keep delaying, or just get "close" , maybe even more than that (e.g. stop at Griesbach and ask them to pony up). Same strategy could work for the East line in the future with Sherwood Park (e.g. stop at Capilano).
- the province should be more willing to chip in, as not just serving Edmonton
- there are a lot more people living in St Albert, than in empty land North the border from 97 street.

highlander
12-02-2010, 12:55 PM
but what if that parking lot (or st. Albert in general) is not the best destination for the line?
.
What do you suggest is the best end destination? A green field? I think St Albert makes sense, because:
- residents of St Albert have a big traffic impact on the NW (just take St Albert trail at rush hour)
- St Albert would presumably chip in, at least at the border, but if we keep delaying, or just get "close" , maybe even more than that (e.g. stop at Griesbach and ask them to pony up)
- the province should be more willing to chip in, as not just serving Edmonton
- there are a lot more people living in St Albert, than in empty land North the border from 97 street.

Why not stop at 97 and 167? Think of the traffic on 97st at rush hour!

It's actually not a horrible result, but it shouldn't be taken for granted, like the WLRT fixed destination at lewis estates. You get a better system when you at least consider the options. Choosing the endpoint arbitrarily is no different than choosing the whole thing arbitrarily. If you're going to study it, study it well.

moahunter
12-02-2010, 12:57 PM
^I am pretty sure any "study" would conclude St Albert catches a bigger population and accordingly, potential ridership, for given cost (as St Albert should contribute). This one makes more sense than Lewis Estates does (I wish a politician would propose an end point re-direct of that line to Callingwood).

highlander
12-02-2010, 01:02 PM
Current bus ridership on 97st is higher than on St. Albert trail, although the cooperative political advantage for St. Albert is large, and real.

And yes, st. albert makes much more sense as an arbitrary destination than Lewis Estates.

edmonton daily photo
12-02-2010, 02:15 PM
St albert is already planning their LRT route... i don`t think `playing nice`is needed. they want this service.

kkozoriz
12-02-2010, 02:16 PM
Here's a thought, let the NW LRT line run up 113A st or 127 st to St. Albert.

Run a low floor line up 97 st until you get north of the tracks. Then, run up 101 st to Northgate Redevlop the commercial block between 101 & 97 to mixed use. Continue up 97 st to 167 ave and then over to 82 st.

edmonton daily photo
12-02-2010, 02:18 PM
I think a line east is more important than a 3rd line to the north.

kkozoriz
12-02-2010, 02:22 PM
A line east to the Park will be mostly for Sherwood Park. That would be a low priority for the city. Let Strathcona county and the province fund that one. Due to the alignment down Conners Road the link to Sherwood Park would run east along Whyte. Not a lot past 75th st in that area.

Edmcowboy11
12-02-2010, 11:21 PM
St.Albert has stepped up to the plate and said they want LRT and considering the proximity to the city it makes lots of sense. I just hope that St. Albert comes to the table soon to add more to the concept planning in way of showing further proposals from the last Edmonton station to one or two stations within St.Albert.

Now I have a related but silly questions perhaps considering that this proposed concept has just been officially released. For reference sake, what could the final LRT station closest to St.Albert be called. It wouldn't be named St. Albert cause the station is still in Edmonton and my hopes are that St. Albert would try to bring the LRT system within St.Albert boarders.

edmonton daily photo
13-02-2010, 01:08 AM
ST Albert Trail Park n ride

kkozoriz
13-02-2010, 07:26 AM
I'd make the Park & Ride part of the extension to St. Albert. Not much use to the city, more for St. Albert commuters. The last station should be about 140 st. Anything past that should be part of a deal that includes money from St. Albert. However, the ROW should be in place even if the line isn't built as part of the initial construction.

Cured
13-02-2010, 10:22 AM
The more i look at this the more i feel that St.Albert would better off being served by the SPR WLRT by going north along 156 street instead of south to WEM. It would provide a decent LRT hub in the industrial NW where already 10s of thousands of people work. The NAIT line can carry on north still up 113a all the way to 97st and 167 ave. And we can get rid of the awkward Y split by doing the 87ave line to the west end.

just playing with money we don't have - or probably won't have for a long time.

moahunter
13-02-2010, 12:13 PM
I don't think the light commercial / industrial NW makes much sense for LRT. It is not dense. It is not walkable. And, many of the people who work there, need their trucks and SUV's for the work they do, they aren't going to take LRT to a customer to install a new bathroom or floor.

Cured
13-02-2010, 09:59 PM
Yes, many there need their truck for work but there is equally as many or more that are in the lower paying admin/warehouse positions that crowd the NW industrial bus routes from the JP and westmount centres. I think an LRT node in the area would be well received.

Albeit all hypothetically speaking......


I'll still throw my support behind the 113a street option to 153rd ave that the city has put forward.

highlander
16-02-2010, 10:15 AM
St albert is already planning their LRT route... i don`t think `playing nice`is needed. they want this service.

Sure they want this service, but so does the lakes district, whose taxpayers will be paying for SLRT, and WLRT, and SELRT, etc...

highlander
16-02-2010, 10:20 AM
I'd make the Park & Ride part of the extension to St. Albert. Not much use to the city, more for St. Albert commuters. The last station should be about 140 st. Anything past that should be part of a deal that includes money from St. Albert. However, the ROW should be in place even if the line isn't built as part of the initial construction.

Agreed 100%. Our last station at 140&157, they pay 100% (minus prov. & fed contributions) from there on. Even then they would be getting a great deal. They should be paying for service on the rest of the line too- after all, aline into edmonton is extremely useful for them, a line to st. albert is not so much for us.

highlander
16-02-2010, 10:23 AM
I took a look at the recent St. Albert Gazette this weekend while at the ancestral manor.

Their report included only the map of the St. Albert trail option, although it mentioned that two others exist. I think it's pretty clear what they would prefer, and it's unfortunately the one that's worst for edmonton.

They also had a downtown redevelopment plan in there, which looked pretty good. The map included 'LRT or other rapid transit' down the centre of St. Albert Trail.

RTA
16-02-2010, 10:44 AM
Agreed 100%. Our last station at 140&157, they pay 100% (minus prov. & fed contributions) from there on. Even then they would be getting a great deal. They should be paying for service on the rest of the line too- after all, aline into edmonton is extremely useful for them, a line to st. albert is not so much for us.

I imagine some sort of model for sharing the operating costs would be worked out. St. Albert has done similar deals with Edmonton in the past (such as sharing the cost of putting lane control on 170 St. from 137 Ave. to the municipal boundary).

Medwards
16-02-2010, 11:04 AM
I took a look at the recent St. Albert Gazette this weekend while at the ancestral manor.

Their report included only the map of the St. Albert trail option, although it mentioned that two others exist. I think it's pretty clear what they would prefer, and it's unfortunately the one that's worst for edmonton.

They also had a downtown redevelopment plan in there, which looked pretty good. The map included 'LRT or other rapid transit' down the centre of St. Albert Trail.

Had to read about it myself, here's the link for others not wanting to search a website designed in 1997 http://www.stalbertgazette.com/article/20100213/SAG0801/302139974/-1/SAG08/capital-explores-lrt-route-to-st-albert

kkozoriz
16-02-2010, 11:08 AM
Check page 7 of the St. Albert TMP for transit proposal

http://www.stalbert.ca/uploads/files/our_government/administration/planning_engineering/TMP_Final_Report_2009_Part_3.pdf

highlander
16-02-2010, 12:24 PM
Check page 7 of the St. Albert TMP for transit proposal

http://www.stalbert.ca/uploads/files/our_government/administration/planning_engineering/TMP_Final_Report_2009_Part_3.pdf

Interesting. Despite talking about St. Albert Trail a a transit oriented corridor, they plan only 3 stops for LRT or BRT, including the Henday Park&Ride. Maybe if we send low floor LRT their way they could put a few more in. I've always thought that if LRT were on the trail then the existing overpass at Sir Winston Churchill wouldmake a great location for a station.

kkozoriz
16-02-2010, 01:25 PM
A low floor line isn't needed. High floor can integrate just as well. It just take planning and proper design.

The population of St. Albert is about 60k. The TMP document talks about planning for 100k. How many stops do they need with no major destinations? No Stadium/University/WEM? How many stops are planned for Mill Woods with a population of 110k+?

St Albert road makes the most sense for a route through the city. A stop on either end and one in the middle covers St Albert quite well. Perhaps, if they desire more extensive coverage they could put in a streetcar system.

highlander
24-02-2010, 10:14 PM
A low floor line isn't needed. High floor can integrate just as well. It just take planning and proper design.

The population of St. Albert is about 60k. The TMP document talks about planning for 100k. How many stops do they need with no major destinations? No Stadium/University/WEM? How many stops are planned for Mill Woods with a population of 110k+?

St Albert road makes the most sense for a route through the city. A stop on either end and one in the middle covers St Albert quite well. Perhaps, if they desire more extensive coverage they could put in a streetcar system.

There's nowhere in st. Albert for a streetcar system. Seriously. The trail is the only mixed use corridor, and it's not exactly pedestrian friendly.

The reason for considering more stops in St Albert is that with 3 you end up missing major crossings that are potential transfer points so bus service has to stay screwed up, and there are some lesser attractions (like downtown, and st. Albert Centre) that can't be well served by a single stop.

If the downtown plans they are considering then their downtown will be bigger then centrury park, with a huge farmers market, the library, courthouse, theatre and civic centre within sight of the LRT but with no access


, and even with 4 stops in st. Albert they would be about 1.5km apart.

kkozoriz
25-02-2010, 12:21 AM
They can always plan for more stops but I don't see a routing within St. Albert that makes more sense than right down the trail.

The streetcar comment was simply wishful thinking.

The_Cat
25-02-2010, 07:58 AM
Even if the LRT has two stops in St. Albert, that will mean less cars on the main drag. Traffic going through the city have the option of taking the west bypass.

Edmcowboy11
25-02-2010, 08:37 AM
I think if there is a reduction in traffic coming into the city then this line will be a great value to the city. With that said, I wonder if a LRT line going out to Stoney Plain/Spruce Grove (from the WLRT line) would also potentially reduce traffic into the city?

highlander
25-02-2010, 09:41 PM
Even if the LRT has two stops in St. Albert, that will mean less cars on the main drag. Traffic going through the city have the option of taking the west bypass.

I hope that when the time comes they will have the guts to remove trafic lanes as they plan to, because St Albert trail is one of the most congested roads in the region, outside of downtown/old Strathcona. They will need the best possible LRT system, accessible to as many people as possible, to make lane reductions politically palatable. Even if the bypass/regional road is done by then, the vast majority of traffic on the trail is local St. Albert traffic, and traffic into Edmonton. Traffic from sturgeon county is minuscule in comparison.

Edmcowboy11
08-03-2010, 12:18 AM
As it has been suggested, I believe the size of St. Albert would warrent at least 2 to 3 stations. One thing that could be nice is a Park n Ride at the very end of the LRT line that could accomodate passengers from the northern part of St. Albert.
As for the route within the city of Edmonton I think the 113A st route would best serve Edmontonians as it appears that it would be closest to the most residential as well as potentially servicing the rec center. On the other hand the St.Albert Trail route would still service plenty of people and would allow for a future NLRT line that would branch off of the station in the middle of the airport lands and either travel up to castledowns or even head to Northgate and then to Castledowns.

Krokwalk
09-03-2010, 04:26 PM
I think it would be folly to use St Albert Trail to high speed the 60,000 residents of St. Albert while the 100,000 residents of Northwest Edmonton are ignored. There are no realistic TODs along the Trail while along 113A there are many opportunities (including lot's of building currently happening at 153). I don't think Edmonton should even be involved without very clear benefit and there is zilch along St Albert Trail.

Medwards
09-03-2010, 05:17 PM
^ If you looked at the route selections, the best options go down 113a Street or 127st before heading to St Albert.

Did you look at the maps/routes being considered before posting?

In case you didn't (which I suspect) here's a link to the 3 proposed routes.

http://photos.edmonton.ca/Other/Proposed-LRT-Routes-NAIT-to-NW/11200559_uF3Xh#784865440_dGKMt

Krokwalk
09-03-2010, 05:37 PM
Medwards, I have seen the other proposed routes but there are several individuals, most noticably St Albert residents and St Albert transportation, wanting to use the St Albert trail route. It flat out stinks if you're an Edmontonian and is of no benefit and I wanted to give my 2 cents, I see very little TOD capability on the 127 St route as well so I think 113 A is the only route that is centered within a large population corridor and is the only one that benefits both Edmonton and St Albert rather than majorly St. Albert and minorly Edmonton. If St Albert needs access to Edmonton then move to Edmonton, pay your taxes here and then they can be more than minorly considered. As you can see, I'm in a hell of a mood right now.

Krokwalk
09-03-2010, 07:25 PM
Rather than just being miserable, I'm going to try and explain.
It's not St. Albert that I'm mad at, it's our transportation dept that puts these routes on their studies and what we end up with is paying for P&Rs in Lewis Estates that benefit Stony Plain and Spruce Grove. St Albert P&Rs that benefit St Albert. Gorman P&Rs that benefit Ft Saskathchewan, International Airport stations that benefit Leduc, Capilano - Sherwood park etc.
Don't put routes out there that go within 2 miles of the city edge and last leg it via bus from there unless those municipalities are paying their share. Don't even give them a hint of LRT until they flat out say we will totally pay for our share of the two miles of line to the edge of the city as well as the line that lies within our municipality.
We are already running out of seats on the LRT by the time they make it to the inner city yet all of those suburb dwellers get their choice of seat while the concientious, municipal tax paying, inner Edmonton residents get screwed. What the hell are our planners doing?
I recognize that these other municipalities also pay federal and provincial taxes that contribute to the systems but if they want service then they must also pay their share of the municipal bill. We didn't make them move out there. They chose it for the life style and now they should wear it.
In the St Albert case if they want it to go along St Albert trail then say this only benefits 10,000 Edmonton residents and 60,000 St Albert residents therefore you pay 6/7ths of the billion dollar extension. If it goes through the centre of Castledowns then it benefits 100,000 Edmonton residents and 60,000 St Albert residents then you only pay 6/16ths of the slightly more expensive 1.2 billion dollar extension. Don't just throw lines on a map and say chose. Let those who use it foot the bill!

The_Cat
09-03-2010, 07:45 PM
I think something bus rapid transit (or express buses) could work well for St. Albert. The bus from St. Albert Centre to downtown (Law Courts) takes about 36 minutes and from St. Albert to University takes 33 minutes. The University connection will mean a connection to Century Park will be under an hour.

XTendEdmonton
13-03-2010, 01:15 AM
I am extremely disappointed to learn that the focus of the North-West LRT line is serve residents of St. Albert while giving the residents of north Edmonton the shaft!

It doesn't make sense that city planners would even consider routes along St. Albert Trail, 142 Street or 127 Street as they do not encompass the Edmonton population base to justify the extensive costs of such a project. It is the residents of Edmonton that will be funding a portion of the NWLRT line, thus we should be the main population served.

A second north LRT line should serve NORTH EDMONTON (i.e. via 97th Street or 113A Street being the very furthest west alignment). The only way a strictly direct line to St. Albert would be justified is if they either start paying a portion of their municipal taxes to the city of Edmonton for the services they use of ours, or if Edmonton plans on annexing the city within the near future so that 100% of their taxes go towards the sustenance of metropolitan Edmonton.

edmonton daily photo
13-03-2010, 01:26 AM
I am extremely disappointed to learn that the focus of the North-West LRT line is serve residents of St. Albert while giving the residents of north Edmonton the shaft!

It doesn't make sense that city planners would even consider routes along St. Albert Trail, 142 Street or 127 Street as they do not encompass the Edmonton population base to justify the extensive costs of such a project. It is the residents of Edmonton that will be funding a portion of the NWLRT line, thus we should be the main population served.

A second north LRT line should serve NORTH EDMONTON (i.e. via 97th Street or 113A Street being the very furthest west alignment). The only way a strictly direct line to St. Albert would be justified is if they either start paying a portion of their municipal taxes to the city of Edmonton for the services they use of ours, or if Edmonton plans on annexing the city within the near future so that 100% of their taxes go towards the sustenance of metropolitan Edmonton.

Um... who said the focus of this route is ST Albert... City Transit adopted lrt planning criteria the emphasizes MANY MANY things. North West Edmonton will have lrt access. Let the process run it's course and don't make unfounded statements.

XTendEdmonton
13-03-2010, 01:33 AM
Um... who said the focus of this route is ST Albert... City Transit adopted lrt planning criteria the emphasizes MANY MANY things. North West Edmonton will have lrt access. Let the process run it's course and don't make unfounded statements.


umm ... I'm sorry, but if you consider an LRT line running through undeveloped industrial land just to reach a small bedroom community as "lrt access" for Edmontonians, you're obviously missing something friend.... but thanks for coming out

edmonton daily photo
13-03-2010, 01:36 AM
it's one of 3 lines and each of those 3 lines have multiple options...

ST Albert trail has TONNES of res around it... But thanks for ignoring facts and being over dramatic!

Edmcowboy11
13-03-2010, 08:27 AM
I wouldn't really call St.Albert a small community. Anyways as edp just mentioned there are a variety of options and through public consultation which will take quite awhile the LRT planners will use all the feed back and decide on the appropriate line accordingly. Also remember even if the LRT planners decide on a route, edm city council must still approve their decision. So don't worry, as much as I personally would like the project to move forward and start getting built later this year, the planning process is still in it's infancy and any concrete decisions wont be made for at least a couple years.

edmonton daily photo
13-03-2010, 12:16 PM
^ Right.. you can't have a balanced discussion if there is only one option. You must look at good AND bad ideas.

Ultimately these routes were chosen because they hit key development criteria.. do they all hi the same criteria? no.. but now we can TALK about what we want.

It's nice to see that people are now screaming FOR the LRT and not against it ;-)

exiledincgy
13-03-2010, 08:43 PM
EDP you hit the nail on the head. How can an option be determined as bad unless it is put on the table as an option. Look at the pro's and con's of each option, remember they are only options and are not written in stone. Maybe because of these options being put forward an even better one eill rise up. It's okay to say an option is bad but it is not okay to say that it should not have been debated in the first place.

highlander
13-03-2010, 09:32 PM
EDP you hit the nail on the head. How can an option be determined as bad unless it is put on the table as an option. Look at the pro's and con's of each option, remember they are only options and are not written in stone. Maybe because of these options being put forward an even better one eill rise up. It's okay to say an option is bad but it is not okay to say that it should not have been debated in the first place.

But if you really need to consider all the options, even ones as crappy as a st. Albert Trail route, why are there no options that end any where other than At a st. Albert trail & anthony Henday Park&Ride? Why no 97st option? No Eaux Clares Terminus? Why not consider Serving the NW with a branch off WLRT?

It's the options that are NOT on the table that make this plan look like it's pandering to St. Albert, not the options that are.

moahunter
13-03-2010, 09:40 PM
It's the options that are NOT on the table that make this plan look like it's pandering to St. Albert, not the options that are.
But there are always thousands of possible combinations or alternatives. Maybe there are three or four you like that weren't looked at, but then there are three or four that someone else likes, etc. At some point decisions have to be made. The end point has been decided as St Albert. If one doesn't think that is right, fine, lobby to change it it to farm outside 97 street and AHD (or whatever else it is one likes better). But given an end point of St Albert, I think the routes presented are perfectly reasonable and appropriate, 97 street would not make sense to me (adding expense by doubling back towards the existing LRT line).

highlander
13-03-2010, 10:05 PM
What if an endpoint at st Albert isn't a given? or starting a NAIT rather than at oliver Square on the planned WLRT? or that the whole quadrant must be served by one line?

None of those things are so obvious that they should be fixed before planning and analysis even begin.

knowitall
13-03-2010, 11:12 PM
The "beginning" point is NAIT and now that Council put the NAIT station near on the Airport lands with another station likely north of that in the Airport development area, the arrow now points towards St. Albert. The "end" point is the Henday Park and Ride, the "end" as stipulated by St. Albert. the St. Albert Transportation Plan has LRT going down St. Albert Trail, therefore some of the components of the line are already set.

97 Street LRT has some advantages but it creates too much travel time for St. Albert riders. LRT will eventually be part of the Regional Transit Service as described by the Capital Region Transit Plan so it makes sense to give St. Albert riders strong consideration.

There is nothing that says 97 couldn't get a branch of LRT in the future if demand justifies it. 97 Street also can be served by premium transit just like the Westend to University will via Whitemud.

edmonton daily photo
13-03-2010, 11:15 PM
EDP you hit the nail on the head. How can an option be determined as bad unless it is put on the table as an option. Look at the pro's and con's of each option, remember they are only options and are not written in stone. Maybe because of these options being put forward an even better one eill rise up. It's okay to say an option is bad but it is not okay to say that it should not have been debated in the first place.

But if you really need to consider all the options, even ones as crappy as a st. Albert Trail route, why are there no options that end any where other than At a st. Albert trail & anthony Henday Park&Ride? Why no 97st option? No Eaux Clares Terminus? Why not consider Serving the NW with a branch off WLRT?

It's the options that are NOT on the table that make this plan look like it's pandering to St. Albert, not the options that are.

The St Albert route is not Crapy to all (I'm not saying it's my pick) BUT it has merit.

highlander
14-03-2010, 09:47 PM
The "beginning" point is NAIT and now that Council put the NAIT station near on the Airport lands with another station likely north of that in the Airport development area, the arrow now points towards St. Albert. The "end" point is the Henday Park and Ride, the "end" as stipulated by St. Albert. the St. Albert Transportation Plan has LRT going down St. Albert Trail, therefore some of the components of the line are already set.

Exactly. It's a series of arbitrary decisions with no real plan. The relocated NAIT station was described by the transit planning head as a way to send a message about the airport. The arrow was pointed that way pretty much without cause. For the end point, I understand that St Albert is a fairly big community. But why does St Albert get to stipulate the design criteria for a billion-dollar EDMONTON project? Why not let castledowns make that call, or the lakes district?


97 Street LRT has some advantages but it creates too much travel time for St. Albert riders.
And St albert Trail LRT is useless for Northgate or Eaux Clares riders, and there are more of them than there are St. Albert riders.


LRT will eventually be part of the Regional Transit Service as described by the Capital Region Transit Plan so it makes sense to give St. Albert riders strong consideration.

It does make sense to consider St. Albert riders, but no stronger than Edmonton riders. And who runs the service doesn't matter. The goal isn't to increase the number of municipalities served by LRT, it's to serve more people. And unless St. Albert is willing to come up with hundreds of millions to pay a big chunk the local share for the part within Edmonton, The people who are paying for it (Edmontonians) should be considered first.




There is nothing that says 97 couldn't get a branch of LRT in the future if demand justifies it. 97 Street also can be served by premium transit just like the Westend to University will via Whitemud.

St Albert could also be served by premium transit, or could be the distant future possibility.

If future demand is there for both North central and NW lines it makes more sense to go North Central with the high floor and serve the NW with a branch off WLRT ( using old rail ROWs from the molson site) as long term there won't be capacity for 3 branches using the main tunnel.



I actually won't mind if NLRT remains a stub for a time while WLRT, SELRT and NW (low floor) LRT are built.

highlander
14-03-2010, 09:51 PM
The St Albert route is not Crapy to all (I'm not saying it's my pick) BUT it has merit.

It's not crappy to St. Albert commuters because it bypasses Edmonton residents.

Could you explain why we (Edmonton) should even consider spending money on this?

highlander
14-03-2010, 10:04 PM
One more thing.

The reason that I don't like St. Albert-from-NAIT routes is that I think that we could actually build 2 lines for a similar cost, if CN railway plays nice.

If you take the best for Edmonton route (113st) from the list, and end it at 153ave, there are 2miles of expensive (like SLRT) track cut from the budget.

If CN and VIA cooperate a line from the molson site could be built using the 121st ROW, the edge of the CN Calder yards an the 142st ROW with no expensive infrastructure or road relocates required except a tunnel under the CN tracks at about 142st, kind of like the one on the NE line at The CN Mainline. This line would be low-floor so stations would be less expensive, and simple,cheap ballast track could be used like on the NE Line. I'm confident that excluding the cost of additional vehicles you could build most of the way from molson to 153 (about 5.4 miles, 8.4 km) with the cost of building those 2 miles (3.2km) of expensive track.

edmonton daily photo
14-03-2010, 10:28 PM
One more thing.

The reason that I don't like St. Albert-from-NAIT routes is that I think that we could actually build 2 lines for a similar cost, if CN railway plays nice.



I would love to see you prove the above... 2 lines.. pretty much double the budget...

There are many communities on either side of the trail. But if we are going to talk about LRT going through large commercial areas, then lets look at 137 ave North of 137 is nothing but big box stores. Catchment for this are all comes from the south side of 137.

edmonton daily photo
14-03-2010, 11:08 PM
Sadly the fault of the North isn't the placement of this line... it's rather the ill placement of the NE line.

One of the prime criteria for the line will be
1) redevelopment
2)density increase.

I see this happening in 3 places (aside from the airport grounds)

1) The fields surrounding Henry Singer Park.. Almost everything else North of 137 ave is Newer. The area south of 137 ave could density to some extent as these are older bigger lots. The Lrt would allow us to develop These last few remaining empty parcels of land like claireview was.. only lets get it right.

2)The old base at griesbach The land along 113a ave is still baron. The design of the development could be changed to take advantage of the LRT.. Should Canada Land Development wish to do so...

3) The older area at the southern portion of St Albert Trail. Here we have LARGE Lots.. Old Houses and a demographic that wants to be close to live close to the heart of the city. In order to catch this portion we need to Take the LRT down 118ave. The Old hospital site would fall into the LRT catch basin and we would pump life back into the North Portion of 118 ave. This commercial strip is MUCH more ped friendly unlike 137 ave and has residential on either sides of it ripe with redevelopment potential. This area also already has Med density development like Baywood and some other apt buildings. The far North Suburbs do not. Lets face it if Bay wood was torn down we could easily put a century park type development on it.

This area will also feed of the energy from the development of the airport lands. The Yellowhead and CN yard will prevent this synergy from heading North.

That leads us to Sheerbrooke and Dover. Both of which again have medium sized developments already established within them. These again are aging and prime targets for redevelopment. They also have substantial school lands within the catch basin of the LRT. It`s unlikely that both of these school will see survive closure.. if they aren`t closed already. This highlights even more room for redevelopment

So a Route that Hits 118 Ave, then uses the trail to cross the Yellowhead, and Finally uses 142 st to access 153 ave has now become my route of choice.

I made a map to highlight...

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&t=h&msa=0&msid=108115751009953674791.000481cfe55001e274666&ll=53.588939,-113.556919&spn=0.060321,0.154324&z=13

Cured
14-03-2010, 11:09 PM
umm... Castledowns/Oxford/Lake District is a fairly massive catchment area north of 137th ave between 142 street and 97 street - it's been there since the 70s. On the other hand, there is virtually zero residential on either side of St. Albert Trail north of the Yellowhead until you are inside St.Albert city limits.

edmonton daily photo
14-03-2010, 11:59 PM
umm... Castledowns/Oxford/Lake District is a fairly massive catchment area north of 137th ave between 142 street and 97 street - it's been there since the 70s. On the other hand, there is virtually zero residential on either side of St. Albert Trail north of the Yellowhead until you are inside St.Albert city limits.

What I`m meaning to say is that the large strip of big box retail makes a pedestrian ``¨nfriendly``zone. It limits the amount of traffic you will catch coming from the North. This is due to the scale of the project, lack of sidewalks and large box stores that create barriers that prevent easy passage of people to the north.

Cured
15-03-2010, 08:17 AM
Totally agree. For that matter i would say that an LRT station anywhere along 137th ave would be a bad idea. Ditto for St.Albert Trail north of the Yellowhead.

I still prefer the 113 street plan right up to 153rd ave. One station to serve Lauderdale/Calder/Wellington/Kensington and another for the numerous Castledowns communties at 153rd - and then directly out to St.Albert.

As the 127th street and Yellowhead interchange will one day need to be completely re-done, I suspect the city may try to push a 127 street solution so they can bury some of the costs into that road works project. But that will be a huge amount of property acquisition on both sides of the Yellowhead.

Chmilz
15-03-2010, 12:19 PM
^Remember that catching people is only half the equation. You have to take them to places they want to go, and both Skyview and Christies corner would be great places to stop.

edmonton daily photo
15-03-2010, 12:25 PM
Totally agree. For that matter i would say that an LRT station anywhere along 137th ave would be a bad idea. Ditto for St.Albert Trail north of the Yellowhead.

I still prefer the 113 street plan right up to 153rd ave. One station to serve Lauderdale/Calder/Wellington/Kensington and another for the numerous Castledowns communties at 153rd - and then directly out to St.Albert.

As the 127th street and Yellowhead interchange will one day need to be completely re-done, I suspect the city may try to push a 127 street solution so they can bury some of the costs into that road works project. But that will be a huge amount of property acquisition on both sides of the Yellowhead.

I like 153 ave too.. but the problem I see with it is that there is so much NEW build up there... no one is going to tear down a 10 year old house. That and the lots are small and not able to be subdivided. There is very little med density housing from what I can see as well.

I agree that people want to shop and would love to use the LRT to do it.. Skyview just isn't ped friendly. those complexes are meant for autos pure and simple.

kkozoriz
15-03-2010, 01:12 PM
Looking at the maps I'm wondering if the run back down to 118 ave is the best way to go on that option. I'm thinking of having a NAIT station, one in the middle of the new development and then head west down 121 ave to 127 st and then north to 153 ave. That little neighborhood to the west of the airport (can't recall the name right now) could be a nice, lower density transition area. Put a station at 122 ave & 127 st to also serve Sherbrooke/Dovercourt. Re zone for mixed use along 121 ave, 118 ave and the east side of 127 st. Redevelop the rest into Low rise apartments, walk-up, brownstones, etc.

Cover the redevelopment of the airport with streetcars and connect to the Via station.

edmonton daily photo
15-03-2010, 02:00 PM
I'm just working with proposed routing..

I peronally have never explored non listed options but what your saying seems sound.

It would have less of an impact on 118 ave and would likely result in the baywood and hospital site being moved out of the catchment zone. I'm using a main catchment zone of 600M which i saw in one of the LRT presentations.. That is your most effective zone.

highlander
15-03-2010, 05:12 PM
^Remember that catching people is only half the equation. You have to take them to places they want to go, and both Skyview and Christies corner would be great places to stop.

It's not only what's within walking distance of the stop, but how bus routes interact. I don't think that there's much now, but in the future 137ave will be a very reasonable E-W bus corridor.

highlander
15-03-2010, 05:15 PM
...
Cover the redevelopment of the airport with streetcars...

That's what I'd like to see. Why cut directly through the centre of our new landmark pedestrian friendly developement with a high-floor rapid LRT row whe nwe can anchor the corners of the airport with LRT stations, and then streetcars can cross through with minimal impact. I'd particularly like to see a 118ave streetcar, at minimum throught the airport lands and alberta Ave. with NE, N and NW LRT lines it could connect all three.

Medwards
15-03-2010, 05:18 PM
^ because they are proposing 'street-friendly-urban style - high floor LRT' similar to what some of the 'experts' here think only 'low floor style LRT' can do...

And really - a street car is LRT in the most basic form. It just doesn't have a ROW.

highlander
15-03-2010, 05:23 PM
If it's rapid transit it doesn't matter wht they do, it will be a barrier to pedestrians.

No one wants to live on the line, they want to live by the station.
At the airport, we already have pedestrian barrier on the east side with Nait/ETS/MES/EPCOR industrial buildings, on the west with the old ROW and VIA, on the north with the yellowhead and CN, and on the south with kingsway. a LRT line through the middle may not be as bad as any of those, but it's bound to be worse than a streetcar.

moahunter
15-03-2010, 05:35 PM
If it's rapid transit it doesn't matter wht they do, it will be a barrier to pedestrians.

No one wants to live on the line, they want to live by the station.
I'm in this situation, I will live on the line, and I am ok with it (hoping the foundations don't vibrate too much, but will be better than noisy buses we have at the moment.

I'm with Medwards on this one, while we disagree over the merits of low floor, I agree that high floor can be done in a more urban fashion. Running the LRT down rail ROW's and similar, fails to do as much to make the city itself more urban and desirable.

edmonton daily photo
15-03-2010, 05:36 PM
If it's rapid transit it doesn't matter wht they do, it will be a barrier to pedestrians.

No one wants to live on the line, they want to live by the station.
At the airport, we already have pedestrian barrier on the east side with Nait/ETS/MES/EPCOR industrial buildings, on the west with the old ROW and VIA, on the north with the yellowhead and CN, and on the south with kingsway. a LRT line through the middle may not be as bad as any of those, but it's bound to be worse than a streetcar.

HUH... The LRT lines will be put into the road.. with no barriers..

Urban style is Rapid LRT built on streetcar style ROW. It won't be anymore of a barrier than a street car.

knowitall
15-03-2010, 09:48 PM
The St Albert route is not Crapy to all (I'm not saying it's my pick) BUT it has merit.

It's not crappy to St. Albert commuters because it bypasses Edmonton residents.

Could you explain why we (Edmonton) should even consider spending money on this?


You need to stop thinking of LRT as an us (Edmonton) versus them (St. Albert) fight. LRT has and alway will be paid for primarily using Provincial and Federal dollars. The original line was built using 90/10 Provincial/City money, the extensions to South Campus were paid mainly using Provincial grants like fuel tax, the extension to Century Park is being paid with borrowed money being paid back using Federal Fuel tax.

Transportation requirements don't see boundaries between cities. We all live in a region and all deserve equal consideration for mobility, especially if it is our income and fuel tax paying the way.

In the end, LRT to the northwest needs to take into account the most logical route based on overall ridership and potential costs to operate and maintain. Lets see where this goes.

Jets
15-03-2010, 11:56 PM
The St Albert route is not Crapy to all (I'm not saying it's my pick) BUT it has merit.

It's not crappy to St. Albert commuters because it bypasses Edmonton residents.

Could you explain why we (Edmonton) should even consider spending money on this?


You need to stop thinking of LRT as an us (Edmonton) versus them (St. Albert) fight. LRT has and alway will be paid for primarily using Provincial and Federal dollars. The original line was built using 90/10 Provincial/City money, the extensions to South Campus were paid mainly using Provincial grants like fuel tax, the extension to Century Park is being paid with borrowed money being paid back using Federal Fuel tax.

Transportation requirements don't see boundaries between cities. We all live in a region and all deserve equal consideration for mobility, especially if it is our income and fuel tax paying the way.

In the end, LRT to the northwest needs to take into account the most logical route based on overall ridership and potential costs to operate and maintain. Lets see where this goes.

Well then St. Albert can apply for these government grants and give their portion to Edmonton to bring LRT to them.

The_Cat
16-03-2010, 12:05 AM
I think one issue about building the LRT down the St. Albert Trail is that there are probably seven or eight intersections between St. Albert Trail and 137 Avenue. If each of these intersections have a light, having LRT down the middle of this road could mean serious backups in traffic, perhaps even worse than 114 Street.

Cured
16-03-2010, 12:17 AM
^Remember that catching people is only half the equation. You have to take them to places they want to go, and both Skyview and Christies corner would be great places to stop.

Yes, but the equation has to be balanced. An LRT route down St.Albert Trail serves only big box stores and car dealerships. It's a huge stretch to call Christies Corner a draw for LRT ridership. I don't see people contemplating driving their cars to a LRT park n ride so they can hope on a LRT, stroll through a couple of acres of parking lot, pick up some merchandise and then make the identical trip back to their cars.

There are some better transit friendly destinations along the 113 street route such as the Grand Trunk Leisure Center, the Castledowns YMCA and recreation center, the Castledowns public library, the Castledowns transit center. Not to mention the tens of thousands of people that have been living there for the last three and a half decades and already use public transit to reach the city core.

Cured
16-03-2010, 12:29 AM
I like 153 ave too.. but the problem I see with it is that there is so much NEW build up there... no one is going to tear down a 10 year old house. That and the lots are small and not able to be subdivided. There is very little med density housing from what I can see as well.

I agree that people want to shop and would love to use the LRT to do it.. Skyview just isn't ped friendly. those complexes are meant for autos pure and simple.


There are dozens of large apartment buildings in the area. I agree that they are not as visible as in some older neighbourhoods, but that is because they are mixed in with all the single family and townhouse developments. They are not right out in your face along the main streets like they would be in an older neighbourhood. It is more similar in style to the Millwoods community which came into existence at around the same period.

I feel that one LRT stop around Castledowns rd and 153rd ave would serve the community well without any property acquisition being required. All the existing ETS routes for the area already converge on that area.

edmonton daily photo
16-03-2010, 12:34 PM
The St Albert route is not Crapy to all (I'm not saying it's my pick) BUT it has merit.

It's not crappy to St. Albert commuters because it bypasses Edmonton residents.

Could you explain why we (Edmonton) should even consider spending money on this?


You need to stop thinking of LRT as an us (Edmonton) versus them (St. Albert) fight. LRT has and alway will be paid for primarily using Provincial and Federal dollars. The original line was built using 90/10 Provincial/City money, the extensions to South Campus were paid mainly using Provincial grants like fuel tax, the extension to Century Park is being paid with borrowed money being paid back using Federal Fuel tax.

Transportation requirements don't see boundaries between cities. We all live in a region and all deserve equal consideration for mobility, especially if it is our income and fuel tax paying the way.

In the end, LRT to the northwest needs to take into account the most logical route based on overall ridership and potential costs to operate and maintain. Lets see where this goes.

Well then St. Albert can apply for these government grants and give their portion to Edmonton to bring LRT to them.

Why... We benefit from LRT too.. Our business will benefit from better connections with St Albert. Lets not be childish. ST Albert will be paying for the line when it reaches their boarder.

edmonton daily photo
16-03-2010, 12:35 PM
^ because they are proposing 'street-friendly-urban style - high floor LRT' similar to what some of the 'experts' here think only 'low floor style LRT' can do...

And really - a street car is LRT in the most basic form. It just doesn't have a ROW.

I'm going to start calling you PRT soon.. This is your BILLIONS

edmonton daily photo
16-03-2010, 12:36 PM
I think one issue about building the LRT down the St. Albert Trail is that there are probably seven or eight intersections between St. Albert Trail and 137 Avenue. If each of these intersections have a light, having LRT down the middle of this road could mean serious backups in traffic, perhaps even worse than 114 Street.

Great.. all the more reason to take the train!

edmonton daily photo
16-03-2010, 12:39 PM
I like 153 ave too.. but the problem I see with it is that there is so much NEW build up there... no one is going to tear down a 10 year old house. That and the lots are small and not able to be subdivided. There is very little med density housing from what I can see as well.

I agree that people want to shop and would love to use the LRT to do it.. Skyview just isn't ped friendly. those complexes are meant for autos pure and simple.


There are dozens of large apartment buildings in the area. I agree that they are not as visible as in some older neighbourhoods, but that is because they are mixed in with all the single family and townhouse developments. They are not right out in your face along the main streets like they would be in an older neighbourhood. It is more similar in style to the Millwoods community which came into existence at around the same period.

I feel that one LRT stop around Castledowns rd and 153rd ave would serve the community well without any property acquisition being required. All the existing ETS routes for the area already converge on that area.

What chance is there for increased density though.. The old base is the only site really. Sadly we don't have any control over that. We can't make the developers change their plans.

Cured
16-03-2010, 08:40 PM
I don't think the question of future density needs to be pondered every time we build an LRT station. The LRT should also be considered as a tool serve active functioning communities that are already there. Castledowns is a fairly large residential node that could quite easily be served by a single LRT station if placed appropriately.

In reality, the City can only support a limited number of mid to high density redevelopment zones over the span of a generation. We already have an impressive list of proposals that are getting back-logged(Century Park, Strathearn, VFC, the Quarters, Fort Road, city center airport, the north edge of downtown)

I suppose i am of the opinion that we are capable of serving Calder, Castledowns, and St.Albert with one station in each community and a single well placed line. At the same time, solving transportation issues that already exist instead of building an LRT route on a more direct path through relatively baron land and hoping that one day there will be some massive residential developments to surround it.

jagators63
16-03-2010, 11:13 PM
it will work better for transit, if st albert and sherwood park have joined Edmonton as one city

Edmcowboy11
17-03-2010, 09:15 AM
^Unfortunately I don't think Sherwood Park or St. Albert would agree with you.

Medwards
17-03-2010, 09:29 AM
it will work better for transit, if st albert and sherwood park have joined Edmonton as one city
Well I share the same wish as you, I think a better approach right now is what the Capital Region Board (http://capitalregionboard.ab.ca/index.php/transit)

Cured
17-03-2010, 10:54 PM
Just for reference...

As of the last census from April 2009, the total population for neighbourhoods between 142 street and 97 street and north of 137 avenue was 53,203. So fairly comparable to that of St.Albert.

edmonton daily photo
18-03-2010, 10:47 AM
I think if we keep this Initial North line more to the west, there is future room for a third line straight up 97st.

I fell if we try and make this a all encompassing line it will miss a key redevelopment area around 118 ave and the westmount mall area.

Connecting LRT to St Albert will finally mean that St Albert will be contributing tax dollars to services that benefit Edmonton. Money from transit passes, shared operational costs, dollars for purchasing LRV's will all be shared. St Albert (IMO) has the largest number of peole who work DT. Personally everyone I know who lives in St Albert (except my dentist) works DT. I also feel that a large percentage of ST Albert families will send a larger percentage of their kids to University.

Lets be honest.. ST Albert has also been the community that side with us most often. Unlike Sherwood park who seems to oppose everything on principle. The park needs to see what co operation can do.

Last point would be... if we don't connect with ST Albert soon, we are going to have to address ST Albert Trail. I'd rather not dump any more money into roads for Autos and use that money to develop LRT.

highlander
18-03-2010, 10:53 AM
I think if we keep this Initial North line more to the west, there is future room for a third line straight up 97st.

I fell if we try and make this a all encompassing line it will miss a key redevelopment area around 118 ave and the westmount mall area.

Connecting LRT to St Albert will finally mean that St Albert will be contributing tax dollars to services that benefit Edmonton. Money from transit passes, shared operational costs, dollars for purchasing LRV's will all be shared. St Albert (IMO) has the largest number of peole who work DT. Personally everyone I know who lives in St Albert (except my dentist) works DT. I also feel that a large percentage of ST Albert families will send a larger percentage of their kids to University.

Lets be honest.. ST Albert has also been the community that side with us most often. Unlike Sherwood park who seems to oppose everything on principle. The park needs to see what co operation can do.

Last point would be... if we don't connect with ST Albert soon, we are going to have to address ST Albert Trail. I's rather not dump any more money into roads for Autos and use that money to develop LRT.

I agree 100% with this post.

Cured
20-03-2010, 12:29 AM
With the WLRT already committed to SPR we would end up with a bizarre amount of LRT redundancy by placing the NLRT route along 118 avenue (only 14 blocks away). At the pace LRT gets built i think it would be wiser to offer a bit more route diversity.

It is likely that the St.Albert express bus to the U of A would have faster commute times than any NLRT route that passes by NAIT, Grant MacEwan, and downtown before reaching the university.

Most of the people i know from St.Albert work in the west end - if that matters.
Most of the people i know from Castledowns work downtown or at the Royal Alex - if that matters.

An all encompassing approach was used to design the WLRT so i don't see why that method can't be applied the NLRT.

I 100% agree with the sentiment that St.Albert needs to be connected to our LRT network, but i want to see it done in a way that benefits NW Edmonton too.

edmonton daily photo
20-03-2010, 12:42 AM
I'm not sure you would see bus service continue from ST Albert once the LRT is running there.

doesn't make much sense

highlander
20-03-2010, 12:55 AM
There's already bus service from St. Albert to WEM, along with the better-used routes to the U via Westmount and to Downtown. I 'm sure the WEM route would survive, the Downtown ones would die, what happens on the UofA route will depend on the speed of the LRT route.

edmonton daily photo
20-03-2010, 01:00 AM
considering this LRT line would take you right to the U of A... it would die as well

The_Cat
20-03-2010, 01:05 AM
When I look at the LRT on 114 Street, there is some gridlock on this part of the road, given the wait for left turns onto University Avenue. For 111 Street, the only serious wait might be 51 Avenue, given the left-turn arrows. Otherwise, most of the intersections are timed well with the LRT.

If LRT is built on 97 Street or St. Albert Trail, there would have to be an underpass at 137 Avenue. These two streets also have a lot of truck traffic, unlike 111 Street. I'm not sure whether building LRT along these roads would be a wise decision. One thing I would like to see though, would be improving the bus lanes along 97 Street and St. Albert Trail. Priority signals (if they are not already installed) would make a world of difference.

highlander
20-03-2010, 01:09 AM
I think if we keep this Initial North line more to the west, there is future room for a third line straight up 97st.

I fell if we try and make this a all encompassing line it will miss a key redevelopment area around 118 ave and the westmount mall area.

....

-NLRT will be at 106st. at NAIT and Kingsway. 97st is only 6 blocks east (there's nothing between 97 and 101 at that point)

St. Albert trail is at about 131st at 118 ave, or 25 blocks west of NLRT.

NLRT's interim terminus is closer to 97st than it is to St. Albert trail.

- To build a low-floor line north from the planned WLRT-SELRT line up to 118 ave would be far cheaper on the 121st ROW than on 97st (no utilities to move, no lanes to eliminate, no ****** off business owners...) would have far less negative community impact, and would serve just as many good walkable station locations (it's walking distance from 124st).




To me it's clear that if two lines are under consideration (and they should be) it should be high floor from NAIT as the central NLRT, and a low floor branch off WLRT for NorthWest LRT to St. Albert.

highlander
20-03-2010, 01:10 AM
considering this LRT line would take you right to the U of A... it would die as well

Most likely, but who knows. You can still take a bus downtown from clairview.

moahunter
20-03-2010, 01:42 PM
^I have a friend who prefers it (she hates the LRT, I don't understand why).

Medwards
23-03-2010, 09:21 PM
NWLRT Presentation and Displays:

http://www.edmonton.ca/transportatio...nHousePres.pdf (http://www.edmonton.ca/transportation/NWLRT_OpenHousePres.pdf)

http://www.edmonton.ca/transportation/NWLRTBoards.pdf

http://www.edmonton.ca/transportation/NWLRTRoutes.pdf

lightrail
23-03-2010, 09:34 PM
NWLRT Presentation and Displays:

http://www.edmonton.ca/transportatio...nHousePres.pdf (http://www.edmonton.ca/transportation/NWLRT_OpenHousePres.pdf)

http://www.edmonton.ca/transportation/NWLRTBoards.pdf

http://www.edmonton.ca/transportation/NWLRTRoutes.pdf

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

Medwards
23-03-2010, 09:44 PM
it makes sense once theres development there.... but that's a long way a way, like many things on the full network assessment.

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

http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/2162/94116604.jpg

Edmcowboy11
25-03-2010, 10:29 AM
Looking at the concepts being show, even though there are 3 route options that they are suggesting the one station that is the same on all three is the ECCA station. I'm glad to see that the is a strong commitment for that area for the LRT. I think the ECCA station can and should become an eventual northern transfer point for the NW line and maybe an eventual NCentral line.

moahunter
25-03-2010, 12:42 PM
Videos on the line and the corridoors (this is nice, City is getting better at this):

Intro video (discusses what this "urban LRT" will mean):
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/UUx7nO5FZpI&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/UUx7nO5FZpI&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

St Albert Trail:
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vYOCqF4lXDM&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vYOCqF4lXDM&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

127 Street:
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fPmmfT-2-q8&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fPmmfT-2-q8&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

113A Street:
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vDtwThzCzp0&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vDtwThzCzp0&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

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

http://northwestlrt.econsultation.ca/

Early comments seem to favour 113A.

tdhssp
08-04-2010, 03:53 PM
Would definitely welcome the LRT between Edmonton and St. Albert!

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

Edmcowboy11
08-04-2010, 04:01 PM
^I agree completely. Weather it's LRT or not I think ETS, St.Albert Transit and Strathcona Transit should be merged into a regional system. GETS (Greater Edmonton Transit System) has been brought up in the past by some and I think sooner than later we have to see this concept put into place.

tdhssp
08-04-2010, 04:11 PM
Having lived in the Province for 20 years, I've watched the rapid growth and it would be fool-hardy to assume that continuation will not transpire. As with other larger cities, areas that seemed disconnected or "far", soon became simply another part of the continued city core. I could hardly believe my eyes when Westlock got a McDonalds' restaurant of its own! Change is rapid! The same will happen here!

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

knowitall
17-05-2010, 09:47 PM
Does anyone know when they will be annoucing the recommended route from NAIT to St. Albert? The workshops last month said they would be presenting something to Council by the end of June.

blainehamilton
18-05-2010, 10:57 PM
According to Inews880 there is supposed to be plans for the 113st/153ave route from NAIT to St Albert announced tomorrow...

glasshead
19-05-2010, 08:10 AM
St. Albert LRT route unveiled

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Read more: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Albert+route+unveiled/3045546/story.html#ixzz0oNtqMqZb


http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Albert+route+unveiled/3045546/story.html

Edmcowboy11
19-05-2010, 08:59 AM
I'm glad that they have decided quickly on this route selection. It would be nice if they could continue construction of this line immediately after the NAIT station opens, especially if they are projecting this line to be a well used line.

moahunter
19-05-2010, 09:00 AM
^good decision. I thought this was the best option, especially as Griesbach is served, it might give that community a bit more push in developing faster. I hope it gives Grand Trunk a boost as well at revitalizing. I agree it would be good if they could just keep building, but they need to the WLRT / Millwoods line up and running as well, Millwoods residents in particular, per the number of buses, need the service.

I like these comments:


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

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

"The LRT is an investment in the future of the city ... even though it seems very costly, and it is costly, if we don't build it, how do we manage traffic 50 years from now?"

Read more: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Albert+route+unveiled/3045546/story.html#ixzz0oO7FcVhb

IanO
19-05-2010, 10:29 AM
I just hope they tie in the VIA station close enough to allow passengers to arrive and depart via LRT.

Edmcowboy11
19-05-2010, 11:55 AM
I just hope they tie in the VIA station close enough to allow passengers to arrive and depart via LRT.

That would be nice, but it would also help if Greyhound would get moving so to speak and relocate out near Via too.

Sonic Death Monkey
19-05-2010, 12:38 PM
The $1.1 Billion price tag is if they have to tunnel under Yellowhead Trail and the CN railyard. The city's preference is a flyover
http://www.630ched.com/Channels/Reg/NewsLocal/Story.aspx?ID=1231720

Edmcowboy11
19-05-2010, 04:05 PM
I like how Boutillier stated that the St.Albert extension past NAIT could only be 2 years additionally past 2016, especially if they contract it at the same time as the other lines.

Glenco
19-05-2010, 06:06 PM
The $1.1 Billion price tag is if they have to tunnel under Yellowhead Trail and the CN railyard. The city's preference is a flyover
http://www.630ched.com/Channels/Reg/NewsLocal/Story.aspx?ID=1231720

Dollars to donuts CN will make them tunnel.

deedub35
19-05-2010, 06:56 PM
The city's preference is a flyover

Great opportunity to here to connect 113A street to downtown. Build a bridge over the tracks for LRT and vehicles. Would alleviate congestion on 97 street and 127 street.

moahunter
19-05-2010, 06:59 PM
^why don't we build overpasses at the other roads on Yellowhead first before spending on a bridge at 113? I doubt Grand Trunk residents are going to be that thrilled either, to get both LRT, and to be split by a new thoroughfare (not to mention its impact on reducing the value of future developments in the Muni lands).

kkozoriz
19-05-2010, 07:00 PM
Do not build a bridge for vehicles and let people take LRT if they want to avoid congestion.
Did they turn 111 st into a freeway when the LRT was extended?

Edmcowboy11
19-05-2010, 08:45 PM
I don't think there are any plans of a road and LRT ROW. I think either way would be fine. Personally a tunnel would be nice as they could maybe even go a bit further north of the rail yards to lessen the impact on the community. But my understanding is that a bridge over the rail yards would be cheaper, so that will do. The thing I would like to see though if there were a bridge, is to have a pedestrian aspect to the bridge.

Cured
19-05-2010, 11:36 PM
Nice to hear a decision on this so soon ! I like the results.

glasshead
20-05-2010, 08:35 AM
St. Albert unveils its own LRT plan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Read more: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Albert+unveils+plan/3050316/story.html#ixzz0oTqOYEHl


http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Albert+unveils+plan/3050316/story.html

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

moahunter
20-05-2010, 08:50 AM
^nice attitude exhibitied there by St Albert. Not complaining, like some people in Edmonton suburbs do, that there are too many stops or similar on the way in.

RTA
20-05-2010, 08:56 AM
I'm a little disappointed that 127 St. wasn't selected. That area could really benefit from the LRT and has a lot of potential to develop into a nifty urban neighborhood.

Edmcowboy11
20-05-2010, 02:04 PM
That is a very good sign from St.Albert in that they are willing to work with the city as opposed to just taking what they can get from the city. The website wouldn't let me read anymore of the article but was there any mention of any particular plans that St. Albert has?

sundance
20-05-2010, 09:00 PM
To me it seems to neither serve the higher densities along 97th Street nor 118th Avenue, if you want to promote development in the future sure it makes sense, but not to serve existing areas.

bootlegga
27-05-2010, 03:32 PM
I don't believe there's been any analysis, study, or decisions to that end however. The zeitgeist at city hall is there to send it NW, but the whole reason they stopped short with the temp. NAIT station is that they don't know for sure which way it'll go north.

Not true at all.

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

The map of all the potential lines they originally looked at resembled a map of the city sewer system. I thought they were very thorough in their analysis.

bootlegga
27-05-2010, 03:38 PM
I'm a little disappointed that 127 St. wasn't selected. That area could really benefit from the LRT and has a lot of potential to develop into a nifty urban neighborhood.

The big problem was that area is already highly congested, traffic wise, with little room for expansion. There are no service roads or medians that can be converted, so the road would go from two lanes each direction to one lane. Given that people who live in Castledowns only have 97st and 127st to travel south, that just doesn't make much sense.

RTA
27-05-2010, 03:42 PM
^ Makes perfect sense to me given that they would have an LRT train that has far more capacity than the two lanes of traffic it would replace as an option instead...

bootlegga
27-05-2010, 04:00 PM
^ Makes perfect sense to me given that they would have an LRT train that has far more capacity than the two lanes of traffic it would replace as an option instead...

Still, not everyone in Castledowns would (or could - given the emphasis on passengers from St. Albert) take the LRT. Not everyone who lives in Castledowns works downtown after all.

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

IanO
27-05-2010, 04:00 PM
^yup.

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

RTA
28-05-2010, 09:30 AM
Still, not everyone in Castledowns would (or could - given the emphasis on passengers from St. Albert) take the LRT. Not everyone who lives in Castledowns works downtown after all.

True, but then those who live in Castledowns and not going downtown likely won't be using 127 St. anyway - they would take 137 Ave. or 153 Ave. east or west to the other employment nodes in the area, or Henday which will be completed before this LRT line gets underway. Those who are going downtown would be more likely to take the LRT and thus be taking that many more cars off 127 St.


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

I used to live in Athlone and took 127 St. daily, by bus and by bike. Traffic was more than manageable during rush hour.

Marcel Petrin
28-05-2010, 11:57 AM
127 Street going to one lane in each direction would be a huge charlie foxtrot, with left turns etc.

RTA
28-05-2010, 12:02 PM
^ Not insurmountable issues, and traffic patterns would adapt accordingly.

moahunter
28-05-2010, 12:04 PM
^what is wrong with the proposed route? It serves part of Griesbach, and provides a great connection for neighborhoods that are "cut off" from having a direct road by the Yellowhead / Rail yards / Muni. Being more "central" north, it can potentially draw from more areas, even Northgate will be a very short bus trip.

RTA
28-05-2010, 12:11 PM
^ I never said anything was "wrong" with the chosen route. Only that I was disappointed that 127 St. was not chosen, for I think that street has amazing redevelopment potential that could have been realized with an LRT stop or two.

edmonton daily photo
28-05-2010, 12:13 PM
1 traffic lane can be very effective it used right.

bootlegga
28-05-2010, 01:55 PM
Still, not everyone in Castledowns would (or could - given the emphasis on passengers from St. Albert) take the LRT. Not everyone who lives in Castledowns works downtown after all.

True, but then those who live in Castledowns and not going downtown likely won't be using 127 St. anyway - they would take 137 Ave. or 153 Ave. east or west to the other employment nodes in the area, or Henday which will be completed before this LRT line gets underway. Those who are going downtown would be more likely to take the LRT and thus be taking that many more cars off 127 St.

So we'll have more downtown-bound car traffic on 97 street? That route is already heavily congested and more traffic would just turn it into a total parking lot from the current near parking lot (from 137 ave all to the Yellowhead from 7-9 and 4-6) it is.



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

I used to live in Athlone and took 127 St. daily, by bus and by bike. Traffic was more than manageable during rush hour.

I don't know what time you took it, but every time I was foolish enough to go that route, it felt like I could have walked faster.


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

Did you attend the information session in mid April at Calder Community League? If you didn't, then you should have. Maybe your voice would have made a difference in the decision. If you did, then I applaud you for participating.

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

Marcel Petrin
28-05-2010, 02:06 PM
^ I never said anything was "wrong" with the chosen route. Only that I was disappointed that 127 St. was not chosen, for I think that street has amazing redevelopment potential that could have been realized with an LRT stop or two.

Between 118th and 137th I agree. But otherwise that's all new construction North of 137th and unlikely to be redeveloped any time soon.

RTA
28-05-2010, 03:02 PM
So we'll have more downtown-bound car traffic on 97 street? That route is already heavily congested and more traffic would just turn it into a total parking lot from the current near parking lot (from 137 ave all to the Yellowhead from 7-9 and 4-6) it is.

Possibly, but remember that a lot of that downtown-bound traffic will be served by the LRT. Remember that we're not just talking about taking away two lanes of traffic, were talking about replacing two lanes of traffic with two sets of rails that move more people faster and more efficiently, which has two benefits: 1. initially reduced traffic flow, and 2. better management of FUTURE traffic as the city continues to grow, which it will do regardless of LRT routing.


I don't know what time you took it, but every time I was foolish enough to go that route, it felt like I could have walked faster.

I was commuting between 7:30 - 8:00 AM heading downtown, and returning 5:30 - 6:00 PM. Traffic wasn't that bad at all.

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


Did you attend the information session in mid April at Calder Community League? If you didn't, then you should have. Maybe your voice would have made a difference in the decision. If you did, then I applaud you for participating.

I did not; I have since moved to the east side, and am more interested in the SE LRT routing at present. Like I said, though, I'm not anti-113A St. routing, I'm sure it will work just fine as an LRT route; I just believe an opportunity has been missed to revitalize what could be a cool little neighborhood in Athlone/Wellington with LRT and some TOD.


Between 118th and 137th I agree. But otherwise that's all new construction North of 137th and unlikely to be redeveloped any time soon.

Not anytime soon, but greater potential for future redevelopment certainly exists there than on the selected route.

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

moahunter
28-05-2010, 05:50 PM
I guess I'm confused, though; the city shifted its criteria for selecting its WLRT and SELRT routes to favour redevelopment potential, but that criteria doesn't seem to have had the same weight on the NWLRT route selection.
I don't understand why you tihnk there is more potential on 127 than on 113. I think they are very comparable, but 113 hits Griesbach, which is really valuable.

The_Cat
28-05-2010, 06:06 PM
I think that 127 Street might be good for bus lanes from Yellowhead Trail to 137 Avenue, if there are no bus lanes.

RTA
28-05-2010, 09:50 PM
I don't understand why you tihnk there is more potential on 127 than on 113. I think they are very comparable, but 113 hits Griesbach, which is really valuable.

Mainly because 127 St. is already zoned appropriately, already has relatively good density, already has at least one well-designed infill project nearby, already has some history, heck it even has a school or two if I recall correctly.

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

The_Cat
11-06-2010, 12:13 AM
Public Hearing June 22: http://www.edmonton.ca/transportation/ets/lrt_projects/nw-lrt.aspx

highlander
12-10-2010, 04:04 PM
Here's what I would like to See for the north and north east. It's two lines, but the overall length isn't all that much more than the current plan.

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

My Plan (http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&msa=0&msid=103013689695934090524.00049271352c12da8d255&ll=53.453166,-113.443108&spn=0.641948,1.234589&z=10)



I'm not sure about the section between Princess Elizabeth ave and 127Ave. PE ave & 97St, 118ave to 97st, and 107St and a flyover at the rail yards are all options. Using 97st for that section too is by far the least expensive.

etownboarder
12-10-2010, 04:08 PM
Your link doesn't work/show anything?

highlander
12-10-2010, 04:14 PM
Fixed.