LRT Expansion Planning

[dunno]

Surface level trams work better for the designed purpose than on the stretch from Bonnie Doon to Millwoods. You also don't want low floor trains in a tunnel (like the frankensubway that Calgary is planning) because of the lower capacity compared to the high floor trains.

The Valley Line won't be buried or elevated in the city core because it's a tram. That is good.
We already have a subway with what's closer to the correct type of rolling stock for the task.

There are plenty of low floor trains underground. There's no reason it cannot be buried - capacity is not an excuse. The trains can still get hung up in traffic and there can still be benefits from a lack of at-grade crossings every which way.

There's a lot of blurred definitions of things. Trams are generally synonymous with streetcars, which is not LRT (except in its broadest definition), although it often shares elements with LRT. The biggest difference is that trams and streetcars usually run in traffic, LRT still has a separate ROW. I think a lot of the COE's messaging over this has done a great job at blurring the lines... but just because an LRT is low floor does not mean it has to be slow, low-capacity, and the streetcar branding is just that.

Regardless, I have issues with a lot of how the Valley Line is being designed and built. The "tram"-like experience does not make sense for such a long, crosstown line that interfaces with a lot of potential riders. This line is going to hit more high density areas outside of Downtown than the speedy crosstown Capital Line. VLSE is already slow. Faster than the bus, but not as fast as the Capital Line. I can't see this getting any better without major rebuilding. But that's a topic for another day.

 

[ewh1]

Hey, new here.

I've always wondered this but what's behind the two portal like walls next to the tunnels? Is it an electrical/ventilation room of some sort, or are they knockout panels for a future tunnel portal? It'd be interesting in the future if they decide to build the Energy/Festival through here, whether its high floor or low floor. Some ideas I had about that are.

Idea 1:
Create a spur line from the Valley Line ROW on 102nd, down on 109st, go underground to a new, low floor platform at Gov't Station. From Gov't Centre Station, create a new portal through the "knock out" panels and a new parallel LRT bridge that meets at the rail corridor at 109st. Use existing ROW or build new tracks through 109st to Whyte.

Idea 2:
I also wonder if the current bridge could be expanded to accommodate either additional tracks or operate additional trains that would tunnel to a new platform adjacent to the existing platforms at University station. Maybe emerge from a new tunnel portal towards 82ave/112st and down Whyte ave at grade.

Idea 2b: Maybe a new west, LRT (whether low floor, or something like a new high floor, equivalent of the Capital line with grade separation and speed) could connect from Corona and down this new spur towards Capilano/Sherwood Park



Screenshot from YT @chrisvazquez7

Pie in the sky ideas for sure, but I just thought I put it out there, and at least figure out if those were knockout panels?

 

[EdwardEdm]

Hey, new here.

I've always wondered this but what's behind the two portal like walls next to the tunnels? Is it an electrical/ventilation room of some sort, or are they knockout panels for a future tunnel portal?

Traction power substation.

 

[The_Cat]

Looking at the growth patterns on this map:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/fastest-growing-communities-alberta-2021-census-1.6347448

I think LRT expansion to the International Airport and Leduc will be a popular topic as Edmonton grows further south. It's possible that Edmonton could plan the line to Highway 19/Nisku.

 

[thommyjo]

Had to get to the stollery this week from west central during rush hour. What’s a 15 minute drive in non busy times became a bit over 40 minutes.

Got me thinking again about 87ave bridge. With how massively the west and SW of our city have grown. And with how large the UofA is for employment, students, etc. I feel like finding a transportation solution for this area is key.

Fox/114/111/109 are all packed and there’s no new roads we can easily build (nor should we want to imo). A new transit/pedestrian bridge seems like the best solution, and an easy connection from misecordia to UofA. Phase 1 getting to health sciences areas, then a second phase connecting to BD through whyte would be amazing. Phase 1 seems pretty critical, phase 2 would be nice, but BRT/dedicated bus lanes for the next 15/20 years would be ok.

After the NW expansion to castledowns, I think this is the next most important link. More suburban offshoots wouldn’t move the needle as much imo. And this offers significant relief to one of our worst, if not the worst, bottlenecks in the city.

 

[dunno]

Had to get to the stollery this week from west central during rush hour. What’s a 15 minute drive in non buddy times became a bit over 40 minutes.

Got me thinking again about 87ave bridge. With how massively the west and SW of our city have grown. And with how large the UofA is for employment, students, etc. I feel like finding a transportation solution for this area is key.

Fox/114/111/109 are all packed and there’s no new roads we can easily build (nor should we want to imo). A new bridge seems like the best solution, and an easy connection from misecordia to UofA. Phase 1 getting to health sciences areas, then a second phase connecting to BD through whyte would be amazing. Phase 1 seems pretty critical, phase 2 would be nice, but BRT/dedicated bus lanes for the next 15/20 years would be ok.

After the NW expansion to castledowns, I think this is the next most important link. More suburban offshoots wouldn’t move the needle as much imo. And this offers significant relief to one of our worst, if not the worst, bottlenecks in the city.

87 Ave-Whyte Ave Crosstown should be a bigger priority IMO. I hope that is prioritized over expansions further into suburbia after the current plans are complete. Getting LRT to all corners is good, but we do need to also build up connectivity to nodes other than downtown and make rapid transit more well-rounded for things other than getting to school and work downtown (and also getting people to denser employment areas not named downtown).

Having better interconnectivity within the central areas is key. Having a crosstown route that winds up down Whyte is a good first step. But beyond that, I think having a more direct link between Downtown and Strathcona by rapid transit is an oft-overlooked expansion. Because of the one ways of the two main bridges and the weaving through the valley, getting between these two areas is often a zig-zagging milk run. I think something like the purple line I created here would work, for example, as a spur from the Metro Line:

From there, I think the next step would be something down 118th Ave to Abbottsfield (and potentially up Victoria Trail down the road). This could be a continuation of the purple line above, where it splits off from the Metro Line at Kingsway.

And then finally, having something that roughly correlates to the 5 Bus right now, connecting Westmount, 124th, the Jasper Ave portion of Oliver, Downtown, Boyle-McCauley, and Alberta Ave together. Potentially continuing down 97th, 127th, and/or Groat.

Bonus line would be another crosstown down 111th Ave, but I think this would be fine as BRT.

 

[The_Cat]

The Whitemud is also packed. Even with BRT like Route 31, there will still be congestion.

 

[dunno]

The Whitemud is also packed. Even with BRT like Route 31, there will still be congestion.

Yep. The Fox Drive bus lane does help a lot but at some point you need something that completely bypasses the roads.

 

[soupcrate]

But beyond that, I think having a more direct link between Downtown and Strathcona by rapid transit is an oft-overlooked expansion.

Sad gondola noises.

 

[EdmTrekker]

Sad gondola noises.

The gondola concept is fluff compared to an actual LRT from Central to Strathcona.

 

[ChazYEG]

The gondola concept is fluff compared to an actual LRT from Central to Strathcona.

The actual passenger capacity was not substantially lower than the Valley Line, for example, and it would've provided a connection right into the heart of Whyte Ave. The Valley Line has a capacity of about 6500 passengers per hour per direction, currently. The Gondola had a projection of starting at 4000 and ramp up to 6000 over the course of the first 6 months.

 

[dunno]

The actual passenger capacity was not substantially lower than the Valley Line, for example, and it would've provided a connection right into the heart of Whyte Ave. The Valley Line has a capacity of about 6500 passengers per hour per direction, currently. The Gondola had a projection of starting at 4000 and ramp up to 6000 over the course of the first 6 months.

The main problem with the gondola, aside from building over a sacred burial site, is that it was designed as a private transit system, separate from ETS. This would all but guarantee it as a tourist service. If you and your destination aren't within walking distance of a gondola station, then if you're already taking LRT or the bus, you're going to have to pay two fares. This is an unnecessary barrier. Real public transit between these two destinations that integrates with the existing public transit system is what's needed, for something that people can regularly use within their existing commutes and journeys. The gondola would effectively be another version of the High Level Streetcar in usage.

 

[Barnaby]

LThe main problem with the gondola, aside from building over a sacred burial site, is that it was designed as a private transit system, separate from ETS. This would all but guarantee it as a tourist service. If you and your destination aren't within walking distance of a gondola station, then if you're already taking LRT or the bus, you're going to have to pay two fares. This is an unnecessary barrier. Real public transit between these two destinations that integrates with the existing public transit system is what's needed, for something that people can regularly use within their existing commutes and journeys. The gondola would effectively be another version of the High Level Streetcar in usage.

Yeah, so ETS should build it with fare gates accessed via Arc.

 

[The_Cat]

Maybe we can open Keillor Road again.

 

[occidentalcapital]

The main problem with the gondola, aside from building over a sacred burial site, is that it was designed as a private transit system, separate from ETS. This would all but guarantee it as a tourist service. If you and your destination aren't within walking distance of a gondola station, then if you're already taking LRT or the bus, you're going to have to pay two fares. This is an unnecessary barrier. Real public transit between these two destinations that integrates with the existing public transit system is what's needed, for something that people can regularly use within their existing commutes and journeys. The gondola would effectively be another version of the High Level Streetcar in usage.

Oh goodness, perish the thought of us building anything for tourism in Edmonton! That would just be shocking and unacceptable!