Edmonton Public Transit - Page 170

naidoo · #**3381** Posted **Sep 4, 2009, 4:45 AM**

ugh, south campus and city centre airport are ugly locations...we'll never win with that.

newfangled · #**3382** Posted **Sep 4, 2009, 5:22 AM**

There is no way Cloverdale park (is that what it's called there?) is going anywhere. And quite rightly, too.

Coldrsx · #**3383** Posted **Sep 4, 2009, 2:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by naidoo

Could this be a possible Expo site, considering it may now be very LRT transit accessible?

1. not accessible enough
2. not large enough

MalcolmTucker · #**3384** Posted **Sep 4, 2009, 4:09 PM**

^ how big is that site? The max is 25 hectares for a International Recognised Exhibition.

naidoo · #**3385** Posted **Sep 4, 2009, 4:13 PM**

Sorry to divert from Expo talk on this thread, but briefly:

1. The site looks about large enough. The max site area is 25 hectares, Millwoods Town Centre is about that size. If you look at a satellite image and compare this site with MWTC, I could see it's very roughly a similar size.

2. It is very accessible with potential new Quarters and Muttart LRT stops on the SELRT proposed route.

noodlenoodle · #**3386** Posted **Sep 4, 2009, 5:21 PM**

So the City has spent time effort and money getting LMRP to be the jewel it is in that part of the valley and you wanna cover it with pavillions and chop down the trees on the other side of the valley?

Really? REALLY?

naidoo · #**3387** Posted **Sep 4, 2009, 6:08 PM**

Yeah, because we need an extremely attractive site, and we need a little bit more development right at the river's edge (Louise McKinney doesn't really count). That's my opinion. We can shift the discussion to the Expo thread, thanks.

Coldrsx · #**3388** Posted **Sep 4, 2009, 7:06 PM**

so... now that we have SLRT, NLRT, WLRT, and SELRT lines in operation, U/C, in planning etc, what does everyone want next*?

*next likely being 25yrs from now

dancinb · #**3389** Posted **Sep 4, 2009, 7:28 PM**

Although it would take the focus away from transferring downtown, Whyte Ave from University to Whyte/82st. We could call it the Whyte Avenue Rapit Transit Line, or ....the 'WART' for short.

tallisgood · #**3390** Posted **Sep 4, 2009, 7:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

so... now that we have SLRT, NLRT, WLRT, and SELRT lines in operation, U/C, in planning etc, what does everyone want next*?

*next likely being 25yrs from now

I would like a train that connects YEG to downtown, but I would to see that sooner than 25 years... how likely that is, or whether the SLRT could handle that task, I just don't know...

DKaz · #**3391** Posted **Sep 4, 2009, 7:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dancinb

Although it would take the focus away from transferring downtown, Whyte Ave from University to Whyte/82st. We could call it the Whyte Avenue Rapit Transit Line, or ....the 'WART' for short.

Would you rather ride the WART or the 🞵🞵🞵🞵 - Seattle's "South Lake Union Trolley". lol.

An airport connection would be nice.

ue · #**3392** Posted **Sep 4, 2009, 7:48 PM**

A low floor line from Health Sciences along University/Whyte Avenues to 75st where it would go elevated over the industrial areas then back on the ground east of the 216 connecting to Sherwood Park.

Also extension of current 1 line to Gorman, and Ft Sask, along with Heritage Valley, Nisku, and the Edm Int'l. And after NAIT line is done get started on heading to St Albert. We could have a new station open on the Blatchford for the 2017 games and then continue to Calder, 137av, who knows what on St Albert Tr/Messier, then St Albert Village Tree Hub.

MalcolmTucker · #**3393** Posted **Sep 4, 2009, 7:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by tallisgood

I would like a train that connects YEG to downtown, but I would to see that sooner than 25 years... how likely that is, or whether the SLRT could handle that task, I just don't know...

Depending on how the yards are moved into and around Port Alberta, I could see a DMU service running into the city in ten years, with something like a Bombardier Talent, stopping downtown, maybe Strathcona, and maybe another place before the airport. Since most the infrastructure is in place, and it would provide a high quality ride, I could see it covering its own operating costs (due to $20 or so fares).

LRT to the airport is just too expensive for very little payout.

Xelebes · #**3394** Posted **Sep 4, 2009, 8:42 PM**

One thing that just came up for me about the at-grade low-level trains running through downtown is the number of cars allowable in a consist. How many cars will there be possible in a consist if it goes at-grade through downtown?

Coldrsx · #**3395** Posted **Sep 4, 2009, 8:48 PM**

i honestly think it is short sighted to not continue the line under jasper to 124st then go above.

Jasper and one o nin · #**3396** Posted **Sep 4, 2009, 9:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

so... now that we have SLRT, NLRT, WLRT, and SELRT lines in operation, U/C, in planning etc, what does everyone want next*?

*next likely being 25yrs from now

as far as NLRT, the approved route only takes it to NAIT - there is not route to Fat Albert

Rogie · #**3397** Posted **Sep 4, 2009, 9:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xelebes

One thing that just came up for me about the at-grade low-level trains running through downtown is the number of cars allowable in a consist. How many cars will there be possible in a consist if it goes at-grade through downtown?

I know that Portland can only handle 2 cars at a time, though that has a lot to do with the short blocks in that city. I rode Seattle's Link line just after it opened, and its stations can only handle two cars as well.

Jasper and one o nin · #**3398** Posted **Sep 4, 2009, 9:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

i honestly think it is short sighted to not continue the line under jasper to 124st then go above.

agree - I just don't understand why LRT construction in this city seems to be the most expensive in the world.

ue · #**3399** Posted **Sep 4, 2009, 9:13 PM**

I dont see why it should be underground. Many cities do really well with above ground, low floor and I'm sure Edmonton will too. They also look really stylish. And Jasper would cause too much traffic problems. Although (and this is my thinking with SPR too) once LRT is constructed on a main corridor it should let out a lot of traffic because more people would be using the transit,.

Coldrsx · #**3400** Posted **Sep 4, 2009, 9:41 PM**

^it is logical to continue the line down jasper IN THE DENSEST PART OF EDMONTON... then over to the museum then follow the rest of the route.