News   Apr 03, 2020
 7.2K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 7.4K     0 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 2.5K     0 

Capital Line LRT

First of all, YESSSSSSS!!! Making decisions like having Ellerslie station above grade shows (to me at least) that the city has learned and is continuing to learn from the past mistakes they've made with the Metro Line. They are getting better at weighing the impacts of having LRT intermingle with road traffic and deciding where grade separation is needed in specific parts of the line ?

@archited I used to like the idea of simply having the LRT head out to the airport, but my views on that have changed over the last little while. I believe that instead of the LRT (which is slower in the context of intercity travel and stops many times along the way) there should be an actual (electrified?) heavy rail connection going into the city centre directly from the airport with 2 or 3 intermittent stops. Who knows... maybe having a combined High-Speed Rail and heavy rail terminal at the old CP yard in Old Stathcona may be a good idea... ?
 
First of all, YESSSSSSS!!! Making decisions like having Ellerslie station above grade shows (to me at least) that the city has learned and is continuing to learn from the past mistakes they've made with the Metro Line. They are getting better at weighing the impacts of having LRT intermingle with road traffic and deciding where grade separation is needed in specific parts of the line ?

@archited I used to like the idea of simply having the LRT head out to the airport, but my views on that have changed over the last little while. I believe that instead of the LRT (which is slower in the context of intercity travel and stops many times along the way) there should be an actual (electrified?) heavy rail connection going into the city centre directly from the airport with 2 or 3 intermittent stops. Who knows... maybe having a combined High-Speed Rail and heavy rail terminal at the old CP yard in Old Stathcona may be a good idea... ?
That is the plan with city plan. New heavy rail from downtown along gateway to airport, with a connection at one of the southern capital line stops. I believe the capital line can't support huge increases in service and they need another line anyways.
 
@danimori & @Platinum107 that sounds like a pie-in-the-sky alternative to me. The only way to make a so-called heavy rail line functional in my mind would be if it were, in fact, a high-speed shuttle that connected downtown (one stop) to EIA to Calgary International to downtown Calgary with a possible one-stop in Red Deer. The High Level Bridge has already been nixed as a cross-river route, so a new "high level" bridge would have to be built that better aligns with a straight shot at downtown along Gateway Blvd. Stopping the connection in the Old Strathcona district at the abandoned CPR yards really serves no one. And if it were viable to have a line to the CPR area it would then have to be daisy-chained to other modes to get downtown (far, far, far from ideal!). I don't get the argument that the Capital Line wasn't built for increased service -- if so, then why increase its length at all. Surely increased service simply means longer train linkages or greater frequency of use or both -- I think Edmonton has a long way to go before this would become even a remote issue. I fly in and out of Edmonton at an ever increasing rate (except for COVID era) and my choice to date has been Chateau Lacombe as a visiting residence (once around the revolver -- twice if it has been an exceptionally good day -- and it is time to cut off the "milkshakes" and head for bed). I mention this because -- as a user -- I would love not having to taxi/uber from the airport or, worse yet, rent a car -- the car rental option adds a half hour to organizational time at both ends of my trip. If LRT has limited functionality, then it is time to stop wasting money on its build-out; but, from what I have read, we are far away from that eventuality. The light rail system in Los Angeles got approval to connect to LAX with, in turn, a people-mover connecting to all terminals -- the metro population of Los Angeles is just over 13 million people; if the link can work here, surely it stands a chance of working in Edmonton.
 
@archited So, regarding the LRT, I don't think that the issue is with the capacity being at limit (at least not for a long time), but rather with the integral design of the system conflicting with longer-distance travel and the type of users. LRT, here in Edmonton and most other places, is best-suited for inner-city transport to inner-city destinations with slower speeds (max 80kph, avg. 50) and shorter distances between stops. Already this presents a problem, as unlike LAX which is within the city “mass” and where LRT makes more logical sense, EIA is far outside the city borders and therefore very far away from where most people want to go.

An LRT connection would fall short, in both passenger comfort (having nowhere to put luggage, having to stand for a very long time if no seats are available after being on a plane, poor ventilation) and efficiency (slow travel time from the city limits to the airport, inconvenient for travellers to have to make so many stops along the way, further slowing down the journey) both of these factors + possible travel delays can make using the LRT from the airport super inefficient and illogical.

Heavy rail, on the other hand, picks up the ball where LRT drops it here. 1: Trains can be specifically chosen or made to be as comfortable as possible for travellers from the airport who just got off flights, with adequate seating and storage space for luggage. 2: moving at at least highway speeds (around 120kph) if not faster and with only a couple of stops along the way into the city will have a huge improvement on travel time and efficiency. 3: Explained below.

This part is just me spilling come of my concepts onto the page, so if it's too much to read then I understand :)

I brought up high speed rail in my last post because it's been on my mind for a while now, and I've even gone as far to create my own concepts and ideas for the project in my mind (which I'll put into paper and pictures soon), and one of the coolest I've thought of is a sort-of... multi-modal megahub for transit in Old Strathcona on Whyte between Gateway and 102nd street. Here at this one street, Five, yes five different modes of transport converge to bring people all over the city. In the old CP lands, the High-Speed terminus is located (with the Airport Train also terminating there for direct access to the other system), which is then linked to Whyte avenue by an enclosed concourse going through that narrow area where the train tracks formerly went to cross it. From there, People may go to the "Gateway" underground LRT station and catch the Festival or Energy Line, take the ERRS Streetcar across the high level (which will have its terminus moved to Whyte in the future) or take the Prairie Sky Gondola into the other end of downtown. This will become the largest interconnected transit hub in the entire city IN THE MIDDLE of the historic district and will make development explode in the area, further cementing Old Strathcona as the second downtown.

Like I said, just my thoughts, and I hope I can draw all this out for you guys soon to make it more understandable ?
 
Last edited:
I am 100% on board with your plan @Platinum107 ! I think Whyte Ave is the logical end-point for heavy rail for all the reasons you mentioned. I would love to see 3 types of heavy rail services though. Airport link, intercity trains similar to via stopping at smaller cities like Wetaskiwin and a high speed rail link to Calgary. Imagine a station similar to the terminus stations in Europe! ????
 
@Platinum107 I am now wearing my "Poke-Holes-in-the-Theory" Hat so stand back ;) The easiest one is the distance from downtown to respective airports -- in L.A. the distance is17.5 miles; in Edmonton it is 16.7 miles -- for arguments' sake lets say they are the same, now what was your point again? -- oh yes, it is that nobody in Edmonton wants to travel to the airport ???. If that is truly so then why build a new special line to do so at all -- simply for speed? Well, from your viewpoint, if I was at L'hôtel Chateau Lacombe (the edifice in my example) and wanted to get to the airport it would take all of my allotted time savings just to get to the transit centre in Old Strath (either by Gondola or by ERRS) never mind to the Airport destination -- still faster and more convenient by LRT (your way I have to lug my lug-gage onto the Gondola or the ERRS -- after walking to wherever the nearest station would be or, "ironically", taking the LRT to get there). Anyway, I think you have to concede my convenience and time-saving points re a downtown destination/starting point. You already (thank-you:cool:) conceded the point about the LRT service being able to handle the increased traffic (a point with which I am in complete agreement). EIA is not far outside the City borders nor from the terminus envisioned in the Capital Line expansion to 41st Avenue SW -- 4 miles (6.4 km), a little more than merely doubling the existing extension from Century City to the new Allard/Desrochers station -- the leg to the airport from there could travel at the highest posted speed for LRT -- 80 kmh -- making the EIA leg only a 12.5 minute trip (takes me that long to find a parking spot and check out my rental car?). And man would I feel convenienced! To the luggage aspect and the creature comfort for LRT use -- being at the starting point (inbound to the City) would most certainly mean that I could find a seat and, going the other way (outbound from the City) I would not be plagued by that "being on a plane (with) poor ventilation" aspect to which you refer. I wonder how you manage on LRT if you ever have to go shopping and have a few parcels to carry -- is the ride only available to the unencumbered disco class ??

Now to the other possibility -- a high speed airport-to-downtown shuttle (stopping at Old Strathcona doesn't work for me nor for most business persons, tourists or musicians ? -- (they like to take the long ride). Since it would be a dedicated line and the airport at its busiest has flights arriving and departing at all manner of times, it would have to continually zoom back and forth or (less efficiently) have a number of shuttles on the same line -- something like London's Heathrow shuttle between terminal 5 and terminal 2/3 (which has two). Let's suppose that there was an efficient route (maybe a hyperloop) that could span the distance in 20 minutes (loading and unloading passengers included) and you could catch one every 10 minutes because they are staggered, do you think that from an economic standpoint for a City of 3 million - future - people that the $12 Billion price tag would or could be justified? LRT would beat every other mode going into and out of the City -- L.A. studied a dedicated shuttle concept for about 15 seconds and threw it out as inordinately expensive and unnecessary.

On a final note I proposed to the City of Edmonton repurposing the Coliseum site as a travel hub -- ERiTH : Edmonton Regional intermodal Transportation Hub (visible somewhere within the confines of this site) that would have been privately developed with private funding and they were not interested -- good luck with raising the same prospect for the CPR lands. No, I mean GOOD LUCK!

OK -- I'm done now.
 
@archited What- Okay, clearly we aren't seeing eye-to-eye on this, so I'll just address your points to mine. Also @Foolworm don't worry this is the last post I'm going to make on this subject here.


First of all, I didn't mention distance once when talking about LAX and EIA, as that wasn't the point of the comparison. What I meant by "city mass" was that LAX is surrounded by highly developed land packed with existing infrastructure, so building a heavy rail connection from the downtown to the airport there would be extremely expensive and impractical, whereas the LRT connection makes more logical sense as it’ll better integrate with the urbanized environment and be significantly less expensive. EIA, on the other hand, is surrounded by almost nothing but open land to easily build a heavy station and alignment on, and the big fat cherry on top is that there is already a direct rail corridor leading all the way into the city. Couple that with my other reasons and only having to make a couple stops along the way as opposed to fourteen and the benefit starts to become clearer. One minor point I’ll concede to is the ventilation. I can see how that one aspect actually isn’t much of a concern. Also, when did I ever say that “Nobody in Edmonton wants to travel to the Airport”? This option is more convenient from both ends of the line buddy.

Moving on to my hypothetical transit hub, “lugging baggage” isn’t going to be much of an issue, as there will be an indoor accessible pedway to reach the underground Festival and Energy Lines (which also directly connect to downtown mind you) directly from the terminal, and the ERRS and Gondola are literally right across the street. Oh, and taking the LRT wouldn’t be ironic because it’s doing what it’s supposed to do, connect the inner city ?

Finally, sorry but I’m not going to even indulge the idea of a Hyperloop. That system isn’t economically practical for inter-city travel much less a 27km jaunt (watch out for my post in the Hyperloop thread in the near future…).

In the end, I guess have one thing left to say: When looking at both sides, it’s important to realize a balance between the benefits and costs in not just the overall project, but in the minute details as well. Yes, extending the LRT to the airport will have less upfront cost and people would not have to make a transfer to reach the downtown area specifically, but at what indirect cost? A slow, meandering ride which will honestly require a large portion of people to make at least one transfer anyway (not everyone wants to go downtown, you know). On the other hand, yes, people will most likely have to make at least one transfer in my system and it will be more expensive upfront, but that’s the point! Once at the terminal, travellers have all possible transit options at their fingertips, including three that take them directly into the city centre. I just can’t see how that isn’t the closest to perfect that things can possibly get.


And that’s what I want to end this on. All of us here want Edmonton’s transit to be as close to perfect as possible, and I think that’s a great thing. Ted, you and me may differ on this one idea, but I know we’re more similar than anything in our core beliefs and ideals when it comes to Urban Planning and Architecture. The only difference is that you’ve had a lifetime of experience and I’m just starting mine, and I hope I get the chance to speak to you in person one day.

Have a goodnight! ?
 
I don't have pic of this, but just before Century Park station there are a few big piles of rails sitting on that gravel pad thing for ETS vehicles. I just saw it out the window of the car and was like: Well they sure are moving fast...

I know it's (most likely) for something else, but just wondering 😅
 
Couldn't find a permit for this, but I rode by the site of the new LRT storage facility (if i understand correctly) near Wally Footz Feild, North of Coliseum, by the Bus Barn. here's a pic, it looks like the site is being prepped, with survey stakes throughout. IMG_8453.JPG is this really going to be another LRT facility? there is a permit for parking lot alterations for the facility next door.
 

Back
Top