No announcement yet.

West LRT | Downtown to Lewis Estates | Conceptual Discussion About Approved Route

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

  • West LRT | Downtown to Lewis Estates | Conceptual Discussion About Approved Route

    Please use this thread to discuss the currently approved route for WLRT -
    this is the old thread:

    This is a thread to discuss other unapproved alternatives to the approved wLRT routing :

    West LRT to Lewis Estates

    About The Project

    The future West LRT line from Lewis Estates to Downtown works towards the Transportation Master Plan's vision to expand LRT service to all sectors of the City by 2040.
    The new low-floor LRT system will connect the West LRT line with the future Southeast LRT line and provide opportunities for transfers to the existing LRT system in the downtown core. Low-floor technology will operate mainly at street-level and separate from traffic.
    What's New

    Following the approval of the West LRT corridor, City Council requested Transportation to assess traffic impacts associated with the LRT plan.
    On June 9, 2010, Transportation presented the options and associated concerns raised by stakeholders to City Council. Council directed Transportation to only examine two lane options. As a result, the three and four lane cross section is no longer being considered as an alternative for Grovenor (Stony Plain Rd from 124 St to 149 St).
    Where We Are Today

    Now that the West LRT recommended route has been approved by City Council, work has begun to determine how the LRT will fit into this corridor, including:
    • Where will the LRT run within this corridor?
    • Where will any bridges or underpasses be located?
    • Where will stations be located? How will they be configured?
    • How will vehicle access in and out of communities be impacted?
    • What plans are needed to address pedestrian and cyclist impacts?

    We need public and stakeholder input to answer these questions and build an LRT Concept Plan to meet Edmonton's needs for generations to come.Get Involved

    For more information about past workshops, information sessions and City Council decisions, visit West LRT Project History.
    Public Workshops

    Four West LRT Workshops have been held to get public perspectives on how decisions that will be made impact the people that live, work and visit the areas where the LRT will be located.
    Comments and presentation materials from the workshops are available. If you have further comments, please send to [email protected]
    Lewis Estates to 156 St/92 Ave
    Tuesday, May 4, 2010
    Workshop Presentation
    Potential Cross Sections
    Workshop Comment Summary
    163 St/87 Ave to Stony Plain Rd/142 St
    Thursday, May 6, 2010
    Workshop Presentation
    Potential Cross Sections
    Workshop Comment Summary
    Stony Plain Rd/149 St to Stony Plain Rd/124 St
    Wednesday, May 12, 2010
    Workshop Presentation
    Potential Cross Sections
    Workshop Comment Summary
    Stony Plain Rd (Groat Rd Bridge) to Downtown
    Thursday, May 13, 2010
    Workshop Presentation
    Potential Cross Sections
    Workshop Comment Summary
    What's Next

    Check BackOpen houses with questionnaire
    Meetings with stakeholder groups
    September 2010
    Info Sessions with Recommended Plan
    November 2010
    Public Hearing/Council Review
    December 2010
    Last edited by Medwards; 22-07-2010, 02:20 PM.
    A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

  • #2
    I prefer the centre running alignments to the north running alignments. I think the north is too disruptive, it means more roads have to be converted in cul-de-sacs, which ultimately limits community access.

    I think the City should seriously consider turning SPR from 124 all the way up to 156 into a pedestrian mall. This would significantly increase the value of properties on SPR, which would give rise to more development and higher property taxes. Divert traffic north to 107, 111, 118, etc, i.e. the arterioles that run between communities.
    Last edited by moahunter; 23-07-2010, 05:14 PM.


    • #3
      I agree moahunter... with both parts, but the second part of your statement, I can only agree with a ped mall between 142st - 156st. From 142 on (east to 124st), a pedestrian mall wont really work, imho

      Traffic can easily be re-routed using 107 ave or 100 ave in these parts...
      A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.


      • #4
        Because of all the roads that affect the residential and commercial area, I too agree that center loading platform in the middle of the road would be best.
        LRT is our future, time to push forward.


        • #5
          Does placement affect the accident rate? A while back I saw a Youtube video of a huge number of collisions with one city's LRT travelling down the centre of a roadway. Loads of minor and major accidents as people turned across the tracks with trains coming up behind them (in their blind spot I suppose). Most of the commentary blamed it on ***** drivers but I'd say may have been plain old bad design.

          Besides the obvious safety issues, these accidents must create repeated service disruption and raise the cost of service as insurance costs rise. Service disruptions would quickly kill the system's reliability and credibility and cause people to go back to their cars.

          Instead of pairing the lines, would it make sense to split the line onto either side of the road - northbound on the northbound side, southbound on the southbound side, etc.?
          Last edited by KC; 25-07-2010, 07:51 AM.


          • #6
            On another issue, will the infrastructure hold up and look presentable in 10 - 20 yrs time? I note that the 114th street infrastructure has a concrete wall with steel or aluminum posts embedded into the concrete. I'm no expert but doesn't that soon lead to hairline cracks and concrete breaking away - plus a REALLY crappy looking fence in a few years?


            • #7
              ^I understand aesthetics will be the next phase. However, the plan is to not have barriers /fences like SLRT. Provided LRT does not travel faster than the current roadway (i.e. 50 to 60 km/hr on SPR), this isn't needed. If you think about it, SLRT only has a maximum of 70km/hr anyway and only for very short sections so the difference in speed is minimal, but it results in a much cheaper and less intrusive build cost. It will be the same with the St Albert high floor line which will also be "urban" style.

              On accidents, that has been addressed for both options by only allowing auto crossing at set lighted locations. Left turns will not typically be allowed (requiring some jug handle type maneuvering), or only at set spots.
              Last edited by moahunter; 25-07-2010, 09:44 AM.


              • #8
                I think you'll find a mix of styles. There will be places where barriers are still required on the wLRT for safety concerns, and to mitigate potential problems between cars, pedestrians and trains. The SLRT does also travel 70km/h for quite a stretch, between South Campus and Southgate and between Southgate and Century Park. It's great to be a on a train travelling quicker than cars on the same stretch of road. Adding in more stops and less barriers would significantly reduce the speed of this route, making it less attractive to potential riders. Just about any modern transit vehicle can 'rapidly stop' so I'm not to sure what moahunter is getting at. LRT is meant to travel rapidly between nodes, and without frequent stops like a bus route, in a designated higher speed ROW.
                A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.


                • #9
                  Medwards: electric vehicles do have faster acceleration/deceleration than regular buses, and of course with multiple doors they also have faster boarding. Both those things make light rail a better choice than a bus for a route making frequent stops, especially when travelling in its own ROW. That's why LRT on Stony Plain Road is competitive on time with non-stop bus service, even making a bunch of stops.
                  Since buses easily reach higher speeds, but have slower acceleration, they're actually better suited to commuter-style express service on a freeway-like ROW, connecting multiple origins to a single destination along a fixed corridor with few stops en route. Capacity is lower for buses, of course, so they're also best for moderately busy routes. Something like the proposed premium bus from the West End to South Campus, for example.


                  • #10
                    Diesel buses can accelerate fast enough. I've noticed that LRT acceleration is usually less aggressive than a bus with a lead foot driver. Both modes are able to accelerate beyond what is comfortable for a lot of people. I'm sure I've read that LRV's are often limited to 1.1m/s/s for passenger comfort reasons.
                    This report shows Diesel bus acceleration to be better than trolley bus, and both better than 1.1 M/s/s, although that's empty. A quick search found references to basic bus standards from other countries that require better acceleration than 1.1m/s/s loaded.

                    The mode where acceleration is limited severely by the technology is Locomotive-hauled diesel rail.

                    The reason that LRT on Stoney Plain Road is competitive with express buses is either because of the traffic priority measures that could be implemented for any transit vehicle, or because the LRT time is an optimistic estimate designed to influence a decision.


                    • #11
                      ^so do you prefer a centre or north aligment in the lanes Highlander (note, this isn't the route discussion thread)?


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by moahunter View Post
                        ^so do you prefer a centre or north aligment in the lanes Highlander (note, this isn't the route discussion thread)?
                        Sorry about that, it should be in the other thread.

                        I prefer the northern alignment. It's the one that best takes advantage of the accessible characteristics. With a side alignment, you get:
                        - Access to stations with no street crossing, for 50% of riders ( in this case more than 50%, thanks to larger, higher density, less affluent neighbourhoods on the north)

                        - A road that is acts as a 2lane road next to a ROW. Centre ROW makes the street feel like a 4 lane road, but without passing opportunities. 2 lane roads drivers go more slowly, and are usually more aware of pedestrians.

                        - Actual curbside stations.

                        - If the new created cul-de-sacs have pedestrian/cyclist access, there is better pedestrian circulation.

                        - Better traffic movement at 142st, where the most important movements will be NB>EB and WB>SB, neither if which will be impacted by the train.

                        -Opportunity to easily branch north on the 121ROW, which would be a great, inexpensive route. I actually prefer it as a route to St. Albert.

                        -It's easier to add stations/stops, at least in one direction.

                        -In the Oliver section, almost all accesses are already signallized, at those intersections there is no need to eliminate any movements, as long as turns across the tracks (from 104) have separate signals, and a no left turn on red rule is adopted for SB>WB turns. There are only 5 unsignallized access to the north between 109 and 121, two if which are mere curb cuts at crosstown.

                        -A simple refuge between the LRT and the Roadway makes it very easy to cross the street as a cyclist or as a pedestrian.

                        -If there's an accident or construction in on of the auto lanes it's a lot easier to share the open lane, although both options require flagmen/signgirls to work.

                        -Where bus lines intersect the LRT, the connecting stop can actually be adjacent the station, without making riders cross a lane of 104st (two lanes east of 116 or so)

                        -No crossing two lanes of 104ave at 109st. This is only assuming that North side happens at MacEwan. It's really odd to be on the north for only 2 blocks, for one station.

                        - I suspect that the ROW will be more respected by motorists if it isn't where traffic lanes usually are, so it will work better with less physical separation.

                        The main disadvantage of side running is slightly lower safe speeds, as the train would not be buffered from pedestrians by 2 lanes of cars. I think that this is a small sacrifice for a more neighbourhood friendly LRT.


                        • #13
                          ^overhead wires look more attractive with a north alignment, which may be an important advantage in areas like Glenora.


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by moahunter View Post
                            ^overhead wires look more attractive with a north alignment, which may be an important advantage in areas like Glenora.
                            Of all the attractive pictures of on-street LRT that I have seen, the ones that most closely resemble SPR are side running ones. I think that centre-running can also be attractive if the street is a boulevard and well landscaped, but I don't think that SPR has space for it where it matters.


                            • #15
                              Open houses announced - September 7 and 8 for the proposed alignment:


                              What's New
                              The City is ready to present a potential LRT alignment, stations locations, and an access plan for review and feedback from the public.