Page 1 of 65 123451151 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 6403

Thread: Valley Line LRT | Downtown to Millwoods | Under Construction

  1. #1
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,576

    Default Valley Line LRT | Downtown to Millwoods | Under Construction

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

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

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

  2. #2

    Default

    A line from WEM through downtown, and heading south-east to Millwoods would be the ideal.... a nice match to the existing north east to south line

  3. #3

    Default

    First thought -

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

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

  4. #4

    Default

    Cheaper and faster should not necessarily be the main consideration. We've got to look at the system that we want to end up with, not simply "what can we build quickly?"

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

  5. #5
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    yes, we should be careful about wishing for a single line snaking through the whole city. there should be a few lines eventually built to connect downtown with every part of the city.

  6. #6
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,161

    Default

    I'm iffy about the idea of extending the sLRT to Millwoods or along the Henday with a bunch of park & rides clogging it up. A Millwoods extension would be acceptable if it was part of a circular route that went from sLRT at Century Park to Millwoods Town Centre then up to Bonnie Doon and back downtown.
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey
    I'm iffy about the idea of extending the sLRT to Millwoods or along the Henday with a bunch of park & rides clogging it up. A Millwoods extension would be acceptable if it was part of a circular route that went from sLRT at Century Park to Millwoods Town Centre then up to Bonnie Doon and back downtown.
    I like the idea of a circular route, this has great potential to reduce pressure on our bridges, picking up commuters through the South Side. In an ideal world, we could keep expanding the Southern route while at the same time starting another LRT expansion elsewhere in the city at the same time.

  8. #8

    Default

    How would you extend a circular route as the city expands outward?

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IKAN104
    How would you extend a circular route as the city expands outward?
    Why do we want the city to expand outwards on the South Side? Isn't this already causing a mess for people (making roads busier), and resulting in massive infrastructure costs (like the interchange's on Gateway)?

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter
    Quote Originally Posted by IKAN104
    How would you extend a circular route as the city expands outward?
    Why do we want the city to expand outwards on the South Side? Isn't this already causing a mess for people (making roads busier), and resulting in massive infrastructure costs (like the interchange's on Gateway)?
    inevitably, the city will expand. Not much we can do to stop it. Might as well have a system that will be easy to grow. Its funny, the same people that don't want the city to grow further outwards are that same ones the oppose intensification in their neighbourhoods.

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by feepa
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter
    Quote Originally Posted by IKAN104
    How would you extend a circular route as the city expands outward?
    Why do we want the city to expand outwards on the South Side? Isn't this already causing a mess for people (making roads busier), and resulting in massive infrastructure costs (like the interchange's on Gateway)?
    inevitably, the city will expand. Not much we can do to stop it. Might as well have a system that will be easy to grow. Its funny, the same people that don't want the city to grow further outwards are the same one the oppose intensification in their neighbourhoods.
    It is a shame if our ring road becomes a suburban road. What will we build then, a double ring road? South sprawl needs to stop soon, it is just too costly a location to develop, we should have learned that by now.

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

  12. #12

    Default

    I dont want to derail this thread - PM me some names of these projects in your neighbourhood you are referring to. I'm interesting in various ways for various reasons.

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by feepa
    I dont want to derail this thread - PM me some names of these projects in your neighbourhood you are referring to. I'm interesting in various ways for various reasons.
    You can do your own research, a quick drive through Grovenor / Glenora should suffice. Just drive up SP road and look around. There will be more projects though. Agreed about the thread derailing, but you challenged my view on an inacurate claim that I do not support densification, which is false. I would love SP road (and other boulevards in the city) to be filled with town houses and low rise condo's, which IMO neighborhood planning will acheive much faster than ad-hoc DC2's.

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

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

  14. #14
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    871

    Default

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

  15. #15

    Default

    I agree that existing neighbourhoods should get LRT before the newly built subdivisions and I think city hall agrees on that too. That is why the NAIT / Northgate line is the next priority.

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

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

  16. #16
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,316

    Default

    I tried to recommend this to the city years ago and got a thanks but no thanks in reply:

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

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

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

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

  17. #17

    Default

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

    Drop a line from the current SLRT...

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

  18. #18
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    435

    Default

    What about a branch route from Southgate to Millgate, and beyond? Already most of the buses within Millwoods travel between Millgate and Millwoods Town Centre...

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

    Bad idea or good idea?

  19. #19

    Default

    hmmm.... I don't know if running through an industrial park is the best way to attract riders. I would much rather see the LRT run east west along either 81st or 83rd Avenue.

  20. #20
    highlander
    Guest

    Default The Legend of Millwoods LRT promise.

    It was most recently raised in Councillor Bryan Anderson's ill-concieved idea that building a arena along the henday somwhere in the southeast, and then building LRT to it.

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

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

  21. #21
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles; Athens
    Posts
    4,399

    Default

    No, nothing in the original plans stated that the Millwoods line would be first.

    This is completely bunk.
    LA today, Athens tomorrow. I miss E-town.

  22. #22

    Default

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

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

  23. #23
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles; Athens
    Posts
    4,399

    Default

    I was one of the original goals, yes, but Millwoods wasn't ever first in line in any long term LRT plan.

    Whether it should have been or not is not under debate her. Highlander asked what the history of the plans were.
    LA today, Athens tomorrow. I miss E-town.

  24. #24

    Default

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

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

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

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

  25. #25
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Victoria
    Posts
    582

    Default

    they should build a 23ave line from MWTC to rabbit hill road. then it could go north along terwillegar/whitemud and connect up at south campus.

  26. #26
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    653

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mark
    they should build a 23ave line from MWTC to rabbit hill road. then it could go north along terwillegar/whitemud and connect up at south campus.
    ...in the process going right by Century Park?

  27. #27
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Victoria
    Posts
    582

    Default

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

  28. #28

    Default

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

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

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

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

  29. #29
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles; Athens
    Posts
    4,399

    Default

    Strangely enough...I think the SE quadrant is the place where BRT, megatrolleys, whatever, is the best transit solution due to the constraints of punching an LRT ROW through extremely dense old neighbourhoods.
    LA today, Athens tomorrow. I miss E-town.

  30. #30

    Default

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

  31. #31
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles; Athens
    Posts
    4,399

    Default

    Think about punching an LRT line through areas like Stratheran or Bonnie Doon and...yeah, you'll have a problem.
    LA today, Athens tomorrow. I miss E-town.

  32. #32
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MylesC
    Think about punching an LRT line through areas like Stratheran or Bonnie Doon and...yeah, you'll have a problem.
    Nope, it's no problem at all.

    Take lanes away from auto traffic.

  33. #33
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles; Athens
    Posts
    4,399

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by madsad
    Take lanes away from auto traffic.
    Riiiiiight......
    LA today, Athens tomorrow. I miss E-town.

  34. #34

    Default

    Don't even have to do that. Just take away the service roads on either side of the road.

  35. #35
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    653

    Default

    It's equivalent to bus lanes. And anyway, who said it had to be an arterial?

  36. #36

    Default

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

  37. #37
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    406

    Default

    Not a bad idea Mark but unfortuantely not very realistic.

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

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

  38. #38
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MylesC
    Quote Originally Posted by madsad
    Take lanes away from auto traffic.
    Riiiiiight......

    No...seriously...

  39. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee
    The original line was planned to go exactly where it is now going, however at the people of Millwoods have been frequently "reassured" that they were getting a line, as early as the original section opening in 1977. It might be embellishment on Anderson's part to imply there was a real planned commitment, but there is some real truth in it. Many people were given reason to believe it was coming.
    I think I need to correct (or perhaps clarify) myself here. Actually the original "plan" involved using the High Level Bridge and possibly the CP corridor down between Millwoods and the Southwest, and possibly more. Ironically this was killed off by none other than CP (Calgary Pacific) themselves as they tried to extort unbelievable amounts of money for the scrap heap the High Level was at the time. Thence the decision was made to build the Dudley B. Menzies and go straight to the University itself (largely for the better in terms of service quality, but this in turn exhausted the rail budgets we had, and along with Klein's cutbacks halted our LRT's progress until recently.

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

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


    -----

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

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

  40. #40
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles; Athens
    Posts
    4,399

    Default

    One of the only ways to put in an LRT route through inner city SE quadrant neighbourhoods would be to employ a design feature put into place in the 1960s.

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

    There is simply no other way to get the room at the moment and the very idea of cutting out a few lanes from busy arterials that are only two lanes in either directions is proposterous.
    LA today, Athens tomorrow. I miss E-town.

  41. #41

    Default

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

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

    Not in preference to widening, but doable?

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

  42. #42
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    653

    Default

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

  43. #43

    Default

    Does "curb running" describe lane separation or bus stops at the curb?

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

  44. #44
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,371

    Default Mill Woods LRT proposal goes to council

    Mill Woods LRT proposal goes to council

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

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

    http://www.canada.com/edmontonjourna...1f9711&k=67405

  45. #45
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    nice! hope it connects Bonnie Doon and/ or whyte ave on the way.

  46. #46
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    363

    Default

    OMG I'm amazed at this LRT momentum.

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

  47. #47
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,371

    Default

    One thing that I hope for from Sherwood Park/Strathcona County. I hope they chip in on the leg of the LRT going to Sherwood Park. It will be money well spent.

  48. #48
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,371

    Default

    I agree, NINTman, if Edmonton has a vision for the LRT, there will be a greater chance of the LRT accomplishing its goal. I look forward to seeing what the LRT will look like in 2020.

  49. #49

    Default

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

  50. #50
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,371

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    It is almost too good to be true. Now is the perfect time for our Council to get together and work together, not bicker over details (which our city transport team can iron out). Alberta has money, the Feds have money, and there is a real commitment by people to do something about the environment - I can think of no better way, than building a truely great transit system in our great city.
    I agree moahunter, I think the lesson that the City has learned about LRT or other transportation projects is that our council has to show leadership, instead of getting caught up in endless details, or getting derailed by a small but vocal interest group.

  51. #51
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,049

    Default

    If it goes up Connors Road, I will have to start campaigning for a stop at the top of the hill!

  52. #52
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DanC View Post
    If it goes up Connors Road, I will have to start campaigning for a stop at the top of the hill!
    thinking of the grade, i would like to see what actually is proposed. it might be really tricky.

  53. #53
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    363

    Default

    Here's a good map by my friend Onishenko made:

    http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UT...47f59&t=h&z=10
    Last edited by NINTman; 15-03-2008 at 03:28 PM.

  54. #54
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    363

    Default

    Bus Rapid Transit loop between Health Sciences Station on the sLRT line and Bonnie Doon Station on the proposed Millwoods LRT line. No dedicated ROW. Attractive BRT busses can shuttle people quickly along Whyte avenue to both LRT stations.

    http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?hl=en&...60332&t=h&z=13

  55. #55
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    363

    Default

    Also, a little off topic, but a tram line to serve West Jasper ave and 104th ave.

    http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?hl=en&...d9b87882a&z=15

  56. #56
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Capital Region
    Posts
    1,210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    It is almost too good to be true.
    That was my first thought, absolutely great news and how cool would it be to have simultaneous construction on 3 lines, that way we could get a station/year rather that waiting 2 or 3 years. Now we just need funding, come on "Feds and Ed" it would send a great message re green policy and help keep us a nice shade of dark blue.
    Edmonton, Capital of Alberta

  57. #57
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NINTman View Post
    Here's a good map by my friend Onishenko:

    http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UT...47f59&t=h&z=10
    I like it! I especially like the route through Rossdale on its way to its terminal at Grandin Station. A station at 97 Ave and 105 St can service Telus field, Rossdale plant and the Kinsmen.

    If that doesn't fly, another alternative for the downtown route:
    From Connors Hill, run along a new bridge along the Low Level Bridge, then underground below the MacDonald Hotel to Churchill station.
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  58. #58
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    363

    Default

    Here is an Anthony Henday BRT line that can also have implications for the Millwoods LRT.

    http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?hl=en&...7a552f792&z=12

  59. #59
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,713

    Default

    isnt it gonna connect at century park to the slrt? seriously though what is south of century park, other than the airport theres no real need to pass the henday.

  60. #60

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by richardW View Post
    isnt it gonna connect at century park to the slrt? seriously though what is south of century park, other than the airport theres no real need to pass the henday.
    I would suggest you take a drive down there, and picture what its going to look like in 10 years of growth

  61. #61
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    I posted this in the WLRT thread, but it fits here too.


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

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

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

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

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

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

  62. #62

    Default LRT everywhere

    Also posted in the WLRT but more of a systemwide idea.


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

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

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

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

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

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

  63. #63
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Victoria
    Posts
    582

    Default

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

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

    I say we build the seLRT along the lines of the gmap posted above by NINTman, but run a line east-west across 23 ave too. Put another along 75 st, one along Terwillegar, etc. I think we need peripheral LRT connectivity, not just a bunch of lines that only move people to downtown. Of course that's my uninformed opinion, and it's subject to change when presented with solid reasoning that says I'm wrong.
    Last edited by mark; 16-03-2008 at 04:38 AM.

  64. #64

    Default

    My view is that Council's role is to select the destinations (NAIT, WEM, Millwoods, maybe airport, etc) and let the experts choose the best routes.

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

    If we look at the vision of LRT when it was first proposed, it was never fully implemented, due to all the details. Accordingly, the approach with Millwoods is right to me. Our Council says lets link it. Our planners say how it can be done. Our Council provides a united case so that we get the funding. But, each time a politicians stick their nose in, and says this transport recommendation is foolish because my pet route is better, all we do is show the funders that we can't agree ourselves, and turn the clock back on progress even further. When the LRT recommendation for Millwoods comes back, lets build it ASAP. We can fill in the gaps later, once we know what the impact is. Unless someone has a crystal ball, any other grand scheme is just blowing in the wind.
    Last edited by moahunter; 16-03-2008 at 10:01 AM.

  65. #65
    grish
    Guest

    Default

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

  66. #66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mark View Post
    The only reason I see for every line to head downtown is the implied benefit to downtown's revitalization.
    I'd agree with you if we required people to get off the train downtown. But SLRT and the proposed WLRT down 87th will allow people to also connect to a major hospital, a university, grant macewan, southgate, century park, meadowlark, WEM, schools and activities along the way, sports venues in the northeast.... this is hardly all about downtown.

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

  67. #67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish View Post
    i think the LRT lines need to head downtown and they should cover the city. most of the proposals above are for the south side of the city. if we do that, we will grow the city in one direction risking getting something similar to Calgary--a really looooong city.
    I agree that LRT should not just be South - although I think South is very valuable, for the simple reason, that it relieves traffic pressure on the bridges. If we get a Millwoods line, seems to me, we will have 2 lines North (NAIT and Clareview), two lines South (Century Park and Millwoods), and one line West (probably 87 avenue, but whatever route). That's not just South to me, it's the initial spine of reaching out to all the corners of the city. NAIT to Millwoods, Clareview to Century Park and WEM, all running through the core. We know for certain that these routes will be popular, as the express buses show us that. We can add new spokes or sub spokes (or even rings) later, as we see start to see what effect these new lines have. The key is to keep the momentum going, keep building to places where it has been proven that people go to. Demand will grow for LRT service, it will become more and more deisrable, making it less and less difficult to push through neighborhooods / replace roads and integrate into the feeder transit.
    Last edited by moahunter; 16-03-2008 at 11:06 AM.

  68. #68

    Default

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

  69. #69
    grish
    Guest

    Default

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

  70. #70

    Default

    Yes, actually, we could have all lines feeding off the main line, if done properly.

    Thanks,

  71. #71
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,055

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Yes, actually, we could have all lines feeding off the main line, if done properly.

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

  72. #72
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    363

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    The key is to keep the momentum going, keep building to places where it has been proven that people go to. Demand will grow for LRT service, it will become more and more deisrable, making it less and less difficult to push through neighborhooods / replace roads and integrate into the feeder transit.
    I agree, the planning proposals that will be made for wLRT, Millwoods LRT and other lines in the future will be at least good approximations to the ideal case (if a generally accepted ideal case could even be determined). And I think the reason why all of this planning is occuring almost simultaneously is to start planning out in detail a regional mass transit plan. From the Journal article above:

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

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

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

    This year we have the political capital to spend, to plan and get on with building a city-wide and possibly even regional LRT system.
    Last edited by NINTman; 16-03-2008 at 02:20 PM.

  73. #73
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,576

    Default

    My biggest question for a SELRT line is where it will cross the river and where will it surface once on the south side of the river. Also should there be a consideration for a further future LRT line to Sherwood park via Capilano area?
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  74. #74
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Victoria
    Posts
    582

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lux View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mark View Post
    The only reason I see for every line to head downtown is the implied benefit to downtown's revitalization.
    I'd agree with you if we required people to get off the train downtown. But SLRT and the proposed WLRT down 87th will allow people to also connect to a major hospital, a university, grant macewan, southgate, century park, meadowlark, WEM, schools and activities along the way, sports venues in the northeast.... this is hardly all about downtown.
    It's not like those major destinations can only be served by an all-lines-lead-downtown system-- a peripheral ring could easily hit the same spots. If we want people to seriously consider routinely leaving the car at home, we need to build LRT where most people live and where most people go on a daily basis. We have to own up to the fact that Edmonton's population density is in the suburbs- it is peripheral, and that's where it will continue to grow the fastest. Downtown is gaining residential momentum, and there are a handful of significant infill projects, but new suburbs support a higher population density than mature neighborhoods and the raw population numbers show concentration around the periphery. Spoke and hub is wrong for Edmonton.

  75. #75

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mark View Post
    It's not like those major destinations can only be served by an all-lines-lead-downtown system-- a peripheral ring could easily hit the same spots. If we want people to seriously consider routinely leaving the car at home, we need to build LRT where most people live and where most people go on a daily basis. We have to own up to the fact that Edmonton's population density is in the suburbs- it is peripheral, and that's where it will continue to grow the fastest. Downtown is gaining residential momentum, and there are a handful of significant infill projects, but new suburbs support a higher population density than mature neighborhoods and the raw population numbers show concentration around the periphery. Spoke and hub is wrong for Edmonton.
    Can you give an example of a peripheral city with ring-like infrastructure? I think spoke-and-hub is 100% correct for what Edmonton is, and also for what it needs to become. Maybe if I had a contrasting example I'd see it differently but I can't think of one that has been built. By the way, the shortest way to the other side of a ring is through the middle. And, we certainly don't have a spoke-and-hub for road infrastructure, so LRT as a spoke-and-hub compliments what we have. I just don't see a ring being better in any way.
    City Centre Airport is to the sky as False Creek is to the ocean.

  76. #76

    Default

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



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

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

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_Subway
    Last edited by moahunter; 16-03-2008 at 06:30 PM.

  77. #77
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NINTman View Post

    ...And I think the reason why all of this planning is occuring almost simultaneously is to start planning out in detail a regional mass transit plan. From the Journal article above:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  78. #78
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    363

    Default

    so when does this go to council this week?

  79. #79

    Default

    A quick look on any major cities website reveals a transportation master plan.

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

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

  80. #80

    Default

    You may also want to review the Capital Region Integrated Growth Management Plan to see how the provincial government is seeing our Region grow.
    http://www.alberta.ca/home/crigmp.cfm

  81. #81

    Default

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

  82. #82
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    You may also want to review the Capital Region Integrated Growth Management Plan to see how the provincial government is seeing our Region grow.
    http://www.alberta.ca/home/crigmp.cfm

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

  83. #83
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    And by the way, theres no point planning a regional system until the little Sherwood Parks, and St Alberts and Leduc keep playing that 'We're autonomous game' once we can drop that racket, and start acting as a metropoltian region with shared costs and revenue, maybe we can start sharing services. Transit included.
    We don't need to plan a regional system, although thinking beyond our borders is wise. We need to plan one for edmonton, and as soon as you consider millwoods(unless it's for a spur off SLRT) you have to recognise that this is something that is completely unplanned.

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

  84. #84

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    For the record, St.Albert has dropped most of the independent facade and leduc and stony spruce are mostly playing nice too.
    Thanks, I'm quite aware of this. under the current weather conditions, its only really sturgeon county and Strathcona county which beat the indendent war cries!

  85. #85
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles; Athens
    Posts
    4,399

    Default

    While a regional system should be planned right now - first we need to build the core of the system
    LA today, Athens tomorrow. I miss E-town.

  86. #86
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Capital Region
    Posts
    1,210

    Angry

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    And by the way, theres no point planning a regional system until the little Sherwood Parks, and St Alberts and Leduc keep playing that 'We're autonomous game' once we can drop that racket, and start acting as a metropoltian region with shared costs and revenue, maybe we can start sharing services. Transit included.
    Unlike highlander I think it's key to include all communities in the initial plan, they create more carbon as they have further to drive.

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

  87. #87
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,295
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Topic folks. Regional transit is another topic, and regional issues have an entire forum..
    Onward and upward

  88. #88

    Default

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

  89. #89
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee View Post
    Can we really get all LRT spokes done simultaneously?
    You are expecting the impossible. Too many of us have a one track mind.

  90. #90

    Default

    ^ translation: "I for one doubt the funding will be available. The kettle is black!"

  91. #91
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee View Post
    ^ translation: "I for one doubt the funding will be available. The kettle is black!"
    Touche!

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

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

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

  92. #92
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    363

    Default

    What happened to this, did the study get approved?

  93. #93
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    406

    Default

    NINT: Yes.

  94. #94
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,576

    Default

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

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

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

  95. #95

    Default mMWLRT

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

  96. #96

    Default LRT to Millwoods could cost up to $2B

    Interesting little read. I remember living in millwoods with 20min express bus to downtown in the morning. Don't know if they can still manage that.

    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Mill+...707/story.html

  97. #97
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,047

    Default

    imagine, for a second, our city with

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


    now that is a city i want to be apart of
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  98. #98
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,679

    Default

    Wow!

    Good article.

    Hopefully the plan will move from paper to reality.

  99. #99
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,184

  100. #100
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    It would be really great to have

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

    Keep on it, city. WE really need this.

Page 1 of 65 123451151 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •