News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.3K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.5K     0 

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.
How did towns like Beaumont and Devon even emerge without a single railway connection at any point in their history? I always thought railways were the bread and butter of small towns like that.
 
Beaumont evolved out of the visage of a "Beautiful Mountain" (yes LSD was available in those days) and Devon was a real estate experiment that followed in the footsteps of Sherwood Park and Spruce Grove... but now it is substantiated by virtue of the University of Alberta Botanical Gardens -- if you haven't been you should go -- it is something to behold!
 
Well I still think that one day, could be 30 to 40 maybe even 50 years out at least, when Edmontons new southeast subdivision is fully built out that Beaumont will be considered for LRT. By that time Beamont will be much much bigger and Edmonton could be as close to Beaumont then to how close Edmonton is to St.Albert now.
 
Well I still think that one day, could be 30 to 40 maybe even 50 years out at least, when Edmontons new southeast subdivision is fully built out that Beaumont will be considered for LRT. By that time Beamont will be much much bigger and Edmonton could be as close to Beaumont then to how close Edmonton is to St.Albert now.
I honestly hope Edmonton doesn't sprawl this much.
 
I think, for now, that the priority for LRT should be within the city limits. If Edmonton can build housing along the LRT lines, that would be a big win.

Places like Mississauga are building north-south LRT. Same thing with Surrey, BC. It’s possible that Sherwood Park, Bremner and Fort Saskatchewan could go that way. There could be 150,000 people in this area by the end of the decade.
 
why would I, as a tax paying Edmontonian, wish to pick up the bill for Beaumont to get LRT? Let Beaumont pay, (and the GOA). Like they say, "not my farm, not my pig". I only hope that some of the groundwork done by the recently demised regional transit authority is still around for a successful, future regional transit infrastructure build out. One way or the other, the bedroom communities around Edmonton will be brought into the transit fold.
 
Last edited:
How did towns like Beaumont and Devon even emerge without a single railway connection at any point in their history? I always thought railways were the bread and butter of small towns like that.
Imperial Oil pretty much started the town of Devon after Leduc no 1
 
What's people's thoughts on "LRT" as the general name for our train system, as its used now?
I recognize it's pretty locked in, but I'm curious what people think.

I look at the system in Vancouver being called the "Skytrain" and it's become a very well entrenched and Iconic name. Even Calgary's got the "C-Train".
LRT in particular strikes me as very utilitarian, but maybe that's a good thing. It's not a subway, it's not a streetcar.

Is LRT good?
Good enough?
or could we do better? Should we?
 
What's people's thoughts on "LRT" as the general name for our train system, as its used now?
I recognize it's pretty locked in, but I'm curious what people think.

I look at the system in Vancouver being called the "Skytrain" and it's become a very well entrenched and Iconic name. Even Calgary's got the "C-Train".
LRT in particular strikes me as very utilitarian, but maybe that's a good thing. It's not a subway, it's not a streetcar.

Is LRT good?
Good enough?
or could we do better? Should we?

Rename the LRT to The Flying E. Especially now that the Valley Line is open and it actually flies.
 
What's people's thoughts on "LRT" as the general name for our train system, as its used now?
I recognize it's pretty locked in, but I'm curious what people think.

I look at the system in Vancouver being called the "Skytrain" and it's become a very well entrenched and Iconic name. Even Calgary's got the "C-Train".
LRT in particular strikes me as very utilitarian, but maybe that's a good thing. It's not a subway, it's not a streetcar.

Is LRT good?
Good enough?
or could we do better? Should we?
I don't mind. A lot of places use just as utilitarian names (usually subways).

I would rethink the colours ETS uses, tho. I would love a purple and green schematic that alludes to the northern lights.
Would make for a much more vivid look and contrast better with the grey and brown of our winters.
 
I don't mind. A lot of places use just as utilitarian names (usually subways).

I would rethink the colours ETS uses, tho. I would love a purple and green schematic that alludes to the northern lights.
Would make for a much more vivid look and contrast better with the grey and brown of our winters.
I agree. I especially think a bit of dynamicity with how we colour our transit wouldn't hurt. I really like how Vancouver and Seattle give their BRT special liveries and I hope whatever BRT we're hopefully soon to receive employs that practise (also frameless bus windows please).
 

Back
Top