No announcement yet.

Post your ideal LRT system

This is a sticky topic.
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Medwards
    Can the downtown tunnel add more tracks?
    Two tunnels = two tracks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


    • I much prefer Meds south east line. It makes more sense to me to use an existing rail ROW rather plow through a wonderful city park.


      • Alright, I'm ready to make some preliminary comments. I'm going to ignore some of your further out destinations as I've previously said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


        • Possible LRT alignments

          Hey gang, over the next few days/weeks, I plan on showing many different possible outcomes for our LRT system.

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

          Let me know what you think.

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

          (and yes, I will be changing WLRT options too, to reflect everything that is talked about here...)
          A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.


          • (yes, I'm bored, and have visio...)
            A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.


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

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

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


              • Originally posted by sweetcrude View Post
                but wouldn't it be nice if people could walk a block or 2 or 6 and wind up at their local LRT regardless of where they are in the city?
                Yea, that would be terrific... but you're obviously living in a dream world. That's like $500B worth of LRT construction, and it's not going to happen, not in this city and not in any other city on the planet earth.


                • Originally posted by etownboarder View Post
                  Originally posted by sweetcrude View Post
                  but wouldn't it be nice if people could walk a block or 2 or 6 and wind up at their local LRT regardless of where they are in the city?
                  Yea, that would be terrific... but you're obviously living in a dream world. That's like $500B worth of LRT construction, and it's not going to happen, not in this city and not in any other city on the planet earth.
                  Well, I guess I should be expecting a comment like that, so let me clarify.

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

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

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

                  Does it? Really? You think so?

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

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

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










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


                    • What's the magic number?


                      • We would need the suburbs to really densify to have something like that.

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

                        The system I designed is meant to be realistic, for the city to accomplish in the next 20-30 years.
                        A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.


                        • Originally posted by sweetcrude View Post
                          What's the magic number?

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

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

                          Also most of the cities that you describe have extensive railway ROW's that make building LRT relatively inexpensive like the original NE line
                          Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.


                          • Density is the key. There is no way in hades that we have the density to expect a Paris Metro...let alone an Underground.
                            President and CEO - Airshow.


                            • Here some more possible configurations. Mainly just moving the WLRT line around...
                              I'm beginning to think that having NLRT and WLRT out of churchill station is a bad idea, though I've yet to show that configuration....

                              more later
                              Last edited by Medwards; 28-04-2008, 08:14 AM.
                              A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.


                              • Don't forgot to expand it to the airport! (and further NE as well)