Thread: Light Rail Boom
View Single Post
  #38  
Old Posted May 8, 2010, 3:45 AM
Mikemike Mikemike is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 1,230
Quote:
Originally Posted by edmontonenthusiast View Post
Edmonton's is kinda a mix. The original NE line does cross some roads, but mostly goes underneath or above roads or creates dead ends. It ripped some neighbourhoods up similar to a fwy, although less brutally and obviously. This line also did a terrible job servicing the nearby neighbourhoods and just had the main purpose of getting to the sports complexes which are dead zones for much of the year.

Downtown and University is underground but LRT.
Edmonton's NE line is built on a former Freight corridor that was still in operation at the time of construction. It actually integrates well with the surrounding neighbourhoods, thanks to decent bus service that feeds into each station, and stations that are, with the exception of the current terminus at clairview, well placed and designed to facilitate easy transfers. The line did no damage whatsoever to neighbourhoods. There are currently 6 at grade crossings on the line, which are protected with bells, barriers and flashing light just like a freight railway. The stations are somewhat overbuilt as grade separation was necessary at the time of construction, thanks to active freight lines. The line itself is very successful, and currently approaches crush loads at rush hour despite 5 minute frequency and 3 or 4 car trains.

Besides current high ridership, which relies heavily on bus transfers, and about 2,000 park&ride spaces, there is vacant or underutilized land along the line that provide opportunities to add a couple more stations while maintaining 'rapid transit' stop spacing, and could likely accommodate as many as 30,000 apartments within an easy walk of stations.

Edmonton is considering a new system of low-floor trains to serve additional sections of the city. The current plans are for exclusive ROW and 100% priority, but there will be far more conflict points and it remains to be seen how frequent the stops will be. The current plan was chosen (for the west side) over an option that would have been a branch of the high-floor system, providing significantly better travel times (we don't know how many stops they included) for most of the ridership area for about the same cost.
Reply With Quote