News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.5K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.7K     0 

Wait, the fixed block system can’t accommodate 2.5 minute headways in the tunnel?
No unfortunately it can’t ETS tried everything practically its not working that’s why they reduced capital line frequency in rush hour from 5 to 6 minutes
 
No unfortunately it can’t ETS tried everything practically its not working that’s why they reduced capital line frequency in rush hour from 5 to 6 minutes
I'm wondering if changing the design mentality past Blatchford because of this is a good idea. If you can't have high frequency Metro Line service, the priority should be higher speeds to entice ridership. Atleast the train length will be increasing next spring, that'll help with downtown capacity.

Do you happen to know why the Metro Line doesn't end further south along the alignment?
 
I'm wondering if changing the design mentality past Blatchford because of this is a good idea. If you can't have high frequency Metro Line service, the priority should be higher speeds to entice ridership. Atleast the train length will be increasing next spring, that'll help with downtown capacity.

Do you happen to know why the Metro Line doesn't end further south along the alignment?

It’s because of the at grade crossings at University Ave and 76th Ave. They have to limit the number train crossings to allow for flow of vehicular traffic.

Looking at some of the documents in the Mass Transit Plan, they talk about in the future making those crossings grade separated and having the south terminus of the the Metro Line being South Campus Station.
 
Coun. Tim Cartmell from his Nov. 9 blog:

"The new Valley Line is great - fast, clean, welcoming. But the massive investment in LRT is part of the reason we cannot put proper bus service in Keswick or Windermere."
I think he's right. If the Valley Line West was rejected, then the project manager for the Kathleen Andrew's garage would have added room for more buses. Makes sense. /s
 
I think after this round of projects are done the City will be shifting gears to look at BRT instead, like how Calgary chose to build its MAX network following completion of the CTrain WLRT and NE /NW extensions.

I've also mentioned this elsewhere, but improving existing service with infill stations, modernized five-car trains, and renewal efforts should also be a focus. Again, Calgary also upgraded its network capacity for four-car trains post-WLRT.
 
I think after this round of projects are done the City will be shifting gears to look at BRT instead, like how Calgary chose to build its MAX network following completion of the CTrain WLRT and NE /NW extensions.

I've also mentioned this elsewhere, but improving existing service with infill stations, modernized five-car trains, and renewal efforts should also be a focus. Again, Calgary also upgraded its network capacity for four-car trains post-WLRT.

This seems to be the case looking at the 2020 Mass Transit Study.


IMG_5460.jpeg

Some future extension of existing lines, but no new rail lines (outside of potentially the airport connector). Lots of planned BRT routes.

No longer looking like this plan will come to fruition:

IMG_5461.jpeg


I would have personally loved the Whyte Ave section and the increased connectivity between Old Strathcona and Downtown, but it seems not be!

Of course, these are all plans, and plans can change.
 
As much as I agree on the above BRT routes, I might have to play Devil's Advocate on Route B6. Would there be support for a bus bridge from 87 Avenue across the river?
 
As much as I agree on the above BRT routes, I might have to play Devil's Advocate on Route B6. Would there be support for a bus bridge from 87 Avenue across the river?

That's a long term plan, and in the short-medium term buses will just cross the river on Quesnell bridge. Personally I think if Energy Line is ever built, it should follow the B2 (B6 is Terwillegar BRT) routing instead of branching towards Corona -- no point duplicating the high floor alignment. As for the river crossing, I think it could be justified as a replacement for the Hawrelak Park footbridge, which should be pushing 50 by the time the issue comes up. It would be similar to Cloverdale and Tawatina Bridge for VLSE.

Screenshot_20231111-153110~2.png

This is the projected build-out at 1.25 million population. I think the current plans are slightly different -- as mentioned before, the Whyte BRT will continue west to WEM via Fox / Whitemud, and the Capital Line terminates at Heritage Valley.
 
Last edited:
No unfortunately it can’t ETS tried everything practically its not working that’s why they reduced capital line frequency in rush hour from 5 to 6 minutes
I spoke with some senior folks at ops/maintenance for LRT and they said that with some fairly minor signalization upgrades (~$1M) they can get down to 5 minutes on the capital line.

The main bottleneck to faster headways is the University Ave crossing.
 
Not a priority right now but I wonder what route would be taken going south of Millwoods town center. If the city goes ahead with the new subdivision south of Ellerslie and East of 50 st, the train will definitely be needed considering that subdivision is supposed to be the size of Millwoods. Would that allow LRT to one day make it to Beaumont?
 
Not a priority right now but I wonder what route would be taken going south of Millwoods town center. If the city goes ahead with the new subdivision south of Ellerslie and East of 50 st, the train will definitely be needed considering that subdivision is supposed to be the size of Millwoods. Would that allow LRT to one day make it to Beaumont?
There were long-term LRT maps in the past that showed the Valley Line continuing east along 28 Ave to 50 Street, and then south down 50 to Ellerslie Road. I have never seen any city plans to continue it south from there, but I think an eventual extension to Beaumont makes sense.
 
There were long-term LRT maps in the past that showed the Valley Line continuing east along 28 Ave to 50 Street, and then south down 50 to Ellerslie Road. I have never seen any city plans to continue it south from there, but I think an eventual extension to Beaumont makes sense.
I don’t think it does make sense. Beaumont is definitely getting into regional rail territory. What it should do is go east on 23 avenue to Meadows community centre.
 
I don’t think it does make sense. Beaumont is definitely getting into regional rail territory. What it should do is go east on 23 avenue to Meadows community centre.
I agree Beaumont is far enough out for regional rail, but the problem is there was never a rail line built through Beaumont, so establishing a regional rail line would be costly. The closest line is probably CPKC’s mainline through Nisku, but that’s already quite a bit of a hike from Beaumont.

If Beaumont continues to grow and one day has, say, 50,000 people, an LRT extension is justified, in my opinion.
 
I agree Beaumont is far enough out for regional rail, but the problem is there was never a rail line built through Beaumont, so establishing a regional rail line would be costly. The closest line is probably CPKC’s mainline through Nisku, but that’s already quite a bit of a hike from Beaumont.

If Beaumont continues to grow and one day has, say, 50,000 people, an LRT extension is justified, in my opinion.
Mill woods is already stretching the limits of a low floor urban vehicle with frequent stops. The capital line to the airport a high floor limited stop faster vehicle is the limit for the system. Maybe a branch into Leduc but that is it.
People on this forum are suggesting the west leg should be extended to the new comm centre the same logic applies here.
 
With Strathcona County having a population close to 100k, and Sherwood Park’s being at over 70k. The area should be able to support two LRT lines. One on Baseline and one on Wye Road.
 

Back
Top