News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 11K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 43K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 6.5K     0 

Barnaby said:
This is what I have been imagining. My apologies for how amateur it may be, I just slapped it together quickly. Starting at Brewery District along the VLW alignment, Terminating the Spur at the VIA station.

View attachment 580730View attachment 580731View attachment 580732View attachment 580733

What we're looking at is a branch line that feeds to and from downtown. It could terminate at MWTC, or anywhere else in between. More complex switching is possible to allow for connection to this spur from the west, but I don't see the point since you could simply transfer at Brewery/120 ST or the Yards/116 ST.

I would recommend identical wire fencing to the Metro line in Blatchford along the majority of the alignment due to the proximity to the park and MUPs. Pedestrian crossings would share the design of the Metro expansion in Blatchford.
My preference for stops would be far more bare bones than the current Valley Line. For cost reasons, I'd recommend what is essentially a raised sidewalk with benches and wind shelters with timed wave on heaters.

Concrete sleepers on a standard ballast would be preferred for the majority of this alignment. Concrete embedded tracks would be ideal for all street crossings, and the 121 St section next to Brewery.

This extension would very realistically cost $150-250m. It would serve a large amount of apartments that line 124th street, it would solve the much needed connection to the VIA station, and it would allow for future expansion across the Yellowhead along a similar line to the old tram.

I really like the idea @Habibfazil had about an Intercity bus station. Obviously ETS could terminate some routes here, but inviting Flixbus to stage their pickups and dropoffs at this location would also be a positive.

I think the city could receive significant money from the feds and the provincial government for this. Especially if they sold this as a commitment to regional rail, which is Smith's brightest spot IMO.

Thanks.

Edit: I clicked on the link that @EdwardEdm posted after making this. It appears that I just recreated a new version of the Northwest Line from the old planning documents.

View attachment 580742

​

Click to expand...

Good job!

May I suggest LRT stops with the following names:
- Brewery District Station (about to be constructed on VLW)
- Manchester Square Station (on 107 Ave)
- Queen Mary`s Market Station (on 111 Ave)
- Inglewood Station (on 118 Ave and Kingsway)
- Terminal Station (VIA Rail)

I`m not sure how much of the VIA Rail track can be converted to LRT. You may want a separate line north of 118 Ave.
Also, you may likely need to keep most of the existing MUPs as intact as possible or risk the wrath of cyclists!
 
Would valley line be the right one for this route? Or is the jasper tunnel extension of capital from 109 to 124th and then north a better option for frequency? Then you can have a second transfer station around 104th and 124th for the 2 lines to compliment Churchill.

Theoretically, jasper from 109 to 124th should one day have significant density. And I agree with concerns about limiting frequencies for the west valley line. I think WEM will drive serious ridership. 5min frequencies on the west leg would be ideal. A spur north would likely interfere with that?

Cost would be way higher. Likely 1-2bil? But the 2nd transfer station would be super valuable
 
thommyjo said:
Would valley line be the right one for this route? Or is the jasper tunnel extension of capital from 109 to 124th and then north a better option for frequency? Then you can have a second transfer station around 104th and 124th for the 2 lines to compliment Churchill.

Theoretically, jasper from 109 to 124th should one day have significant density. And I agree with concerns about limiting frequencies for the west valley line. I think WEM will drive serious ridership. 5min frequencies on the west leg would be ideal. A spur north would likely interfere with that?

Cost would be way higher. Likely 1-2bil? But the 2nd transfer station would be super valuable
Click to expand...
IIRC, Corona was designed to have the rails run straight west under Jasper and surface around the old CPR bridge and run west. I recall seeing or reading something along those lines eons ago. Turning north at 121st would have been a straight run into St Albert. There were so many plans/suggestions, and they tend to overlap as the memory is getting fuzzy...
 
Habibfazil said:
IIRC, Corona was designed to have the rails run straight west under Jasper and surface around the old CPR bridge and run west. I recall seeing or reading something along those lines eons ago. Turning north at 121st would have been a straight run into St Albert. There were so many plans/suggestions, and they tend to overlap as the memory is getting fuzzy...
Click to expand...
That would have been in 76 or so. At the beginning. Also one was though to go straight down Jasper and Cross Groat bride with a station at the museum. ( The Tunnel starts down Jasper right at the turn south. But 121 would have used the old Rail RoW. Which was an original plan. There was also a ROW up along about 99st to Griesbach
 
thommyjo said:
Would valley line be the right one for this route? Or is the jasper tunnel extension of capital from 109 to 124th and then north a better option for frequency? Then you can have a second transfer station around 104th and 124th for the 2 lines to compliment Churchill.

Theoretically, jasper from 109 to 124th should one day have significant density. And I agree with concerns about limiting frequencies for the west valley line. I think WEM will drive serious ridership. 5min frequencies on the west leg would be ideal. A spur north would likely interfere with that?

Cost would be way higher. Likely 1-2bil? But the 2nd transfer station would be super valuable
Click to expand...
I think so because of cost alone. I really think I'm estimating on the high end.

The tram along that alignment could handle densification in that area for the next 30-50 years, especially since it would function less like a commuter system due to proximity to amenities.

I don't think a spur would do anything to harm frequencies at all since we'd be looking at at least 1 minute gaps between trams.

I can't see a subway extension down the rest of Jasper Ave for the foreseeable future due to cost. If money were no object, I'd agree that a subway in the route you've described is ideal.

A subway extension from Corona to 118th Ave along 124th would easily hit $2 billion. You'd need to use a TBM, as cut and cover would most likely be shot down.

I think we're at the point where it's tram or nothing down Jasper. Still, I'd appreciate a streetcar line in this city like what KC has deployed for very little money.
 
Barnaby said:
I think the increased frequency to WEM could make more sense, but higher frequency downtown seems more important than on the West End. I'm also trying to keep switching reliability in mind with this instead of a complicated union.
This line would most likely run at a 15 minute frequency?

I would love a Valley Line connection down Jasper Avenue from 124th to 109th (ish) since there is an LRT dead zone close to the river right now, I just don't see it financially viable with all of the other planned extensions. The 121 Street alignment would very affordable compared to all other planned, and advisable extensions.
Click to expand...
It makes absolutely no sense to have more capacity to MWTC than WEM. None. Downtown is important and the west leg will have greater ridership than the SE going both ways. This makes no sense.
Crossing lines at 104 would not need any switching it would be a simple crossing.
Why does it have to be LRT? Why can’t it be an articulated or bi-articulated trolley bus with battery assist as suggested by Reece? It could make a loop through downtown along Jasper and back down 107 avenue one each way?
 
Barnaby said:
I think so because of cost alone. I really think I'm estimating on the high end.

The tram along that alignment could handle densification in that area for the next 30-50 years, especially since it would function less like a commuter system due to proximity to amenities.

I don't think a spur would do anything to harm frequencies at all since we'd be looking at at least 1 minute gaps between trams.

I can't see a subway extension down the rest of Jasper Ave for the foreseeable future due to cost. If money were no object, I'd agree that a subway in the route you've described is ideal.

A subway extension from Corona to 118th Ave along 124th would easily hit $2 billion. You'd need to use a TBM, as cut and cover would most likely be shot down.

I think we're at the point where it's tram or nothing down Jasper. Still, I'd appreciate a streetcar line in this city like what KC has deployed for very little money.
Click to expand...

I hear you, but how do I rationalize running a line down Jasper instead of between Health Sciences and Bonnie Doon - especially when we have the Valley Line already serving 109-124 in Wihkwentowin as is?
 
I really like the idea. Seems like an easy win, kinda surprised it wasn't considered with the WLRT expansion.

However, I am fearful that once the Ellerslie extension is done we may not have any LRT expansion for a long time.. The city's capital budget is near maxed out and the public seems less interested in city building projects, I think our next council will be very project adverse. The province is clearly not interested in funding LRT projects, and I doubt the next federal government is going to be interested in funding much. I hate to be a pessimist but I think BRT is what we have to look forward for the next decade+...
 
Glenco said:
It makes absolutely no sense to have more capacity to MWTC than WEM. None. Downtown is important and the west leg will have greater ridership than the SE going both ways. This makes no sense.
Click to expand...
Okay, so make the switching branch off the west leg of the VLW, it doesn't change anything besides transfers to and from DT would be at the 124th ST stop.

Exact same alignment.
 
Tropical said:
I hear you, but how do I rationalize running a line down Jasper instead of between Health Sciences and Bonnie Doon - especially when we have the Valley Line already serving 109-124 in Wihkwentowin as is?
Click to expand...
You can't.

Whyte avenue is definitely the priority. Luckily BRT is being explored right now.

I'm not particularly a big bus fan though. I've experienced BRT in Winnipeg, and it's such a let down compared to a "bus on rails" LRT.
 
Last edited:
IanO said:
NW LRT to St.Albert please and thank you!
---

New Federal $30,000,000,000 transit fund now open for applications.

$3bil x 10 years
Click to expand...
Will the Feds really pay for the whole thing? Like @SarcasticMarmot noted, City's capital project budget is basically maxed and the province likely isn't to provide any funds.
 
^ Worse yet, Province could flat out deny the funds transfer from Feds to Edmonton, no?

If LRT isn't an option, City badly needs to utilize this grant for at least offsetting the bus replacement costs. Could end up providing major budget relief. Unless this is ear noted solely for capital projects.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top