News   Apr 03, 2020
From the Editor: A Message to Our Readers
 8.2K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
Topping Off March 2020: What's Hot on SkyriseEdmonton
 9.5K     0 
News   Apr 02, 2020
News Roundup for April 2, 2020
 3.1K     0 

Capital Line LRT

Foolworm said:
Should be very close to awarding the contract for the extension to Heritage Valley now.

That being said, an overhaul of Churchill station, as well as a couple of infill stations (92 St and 40 Ave) would be good.
Click to expand...
I wish I could get excited. But this will be yet another example of the City cheaping out and cutting corners on legacy infrastructure. Like the at-grade crossing of University Avenue instead of a tunnel, the at-grade crossings around Kingsway, the bus stop for the Valley Line at Bonnie Doon instead of a proper elevated station, and the street furniture awkwardly plunked down on the sidewalk at Quarters instead of a proper underground station.

We are going to regret not building the elevated station and crossing at Heritage Valley as originally proposed.
 
The road can be put under the tracks at Heritage Valley later on if it's that important. I don't think elevated stations are that great after riding the Valley Line a bit. More stations like Commonwealth and the two Blatchford ones are preferred.
 
TravellingChris said:
I wish I could get excited. But this will be yet another example of the City cheaping out and cutting corners on legacy infrastructure. Like the at-grade crossing of University Avenue instead of a tunnel, the at-grade crossings around Kingsway, the bus stop for the Valley Line at Bonnie Doon instead of a proper elevated station, and the street furniture awkwardly plunked down on the sidewalk at Quarters instead of a proper underground station.

We are going to regret not building the elevated station and crossing at Heritage Valley as originally proposed.
Click to expand...

So while it is disappointing that there is cost cutting, I think it is just the reality of the current market. There was the hope that the Provincial government might top up the difference because of the new hospital -- obviously that didn't happen. But without that there's no impetus to extend south of Ellerslie anyway, and I would rather have a temporary station like what NAIT was, instead of spending money like Blatchford where it will take decades to even hit opening day target ridership.
 
I suppose for me, I would say one of the things that bugs me about all this would be the "overpromising and underdelivering" factor.

The elevated station was the part I was the most excited for for the expansion, I thought it looked cool, it gave off a big city vibe (like the VancouverSkytrain), feeling like the city was learning from past mistakes, etc.

I know there's the Davies station and the two under construction stations at Miseracordia and WEM, but I would love more of them. This would sting a lot less if it wasn't planned to begin.

Can't say I'm a fan of how this whole thing got handled either.

I don't know...

I do wonder if it's wrong for me to feel this way.
 
SumAqua said:
I suppose for me, I would say one of the things that bugs me about all this would be the "overpromising and underdelivering" factor.

The elevated station was the part I was the most excited for for the expansion, I thought it looked cool, it gave off a big city vibe (like the VancouverSkytrain), feeling like the city was learning from past mistakes, etc.

I know there's the Davies station and the two under construction stations at Miseracordia and WEM, but I would love more of them. This would sting a lot less if it wasn't planned to begin.

Can't say I'm a fan of how this whole thing got handled either.

I don't know...

I do wonder if it's wrong for me to feel this way.
Click to expand...

The elevated station and Ellerslie flyover was actually not planned to begin with, as in this 2017 video:


So I agree that the City shouldn't have raised expectations (literally), because if anything it made things worse with the reversion to at-grade. At the same time I can't really fault them because the Pandemic really did change everything.

For Valley Line I had no expectations as any grade separation was out of absolute necessity. Davies is sandwiched between the CN / CP lines, and the tunnel has to connect the bridge with 102 Ave. I am sure if there was an at-grade option for either (like with Connors Rd or Bonnie Doon) the City would have chosen it in a heartbeat.
 
Foolworm said:
The elevated station and Ellerslie flyover was actually not planned to begin with, as in this 2017 video:


So I agree that the City shouldn't have raised expectations (literally), because if anything it made things worse with the reversion to at-grade. At the same time I can't really fault them because the Pandemic really did change everything.

For Valley Line I had no expectations as any grade separation was out of absolute necessity. Davies is sandwiched between the CN / CP lines, and the tunnel has to connect the bridge with 102 Ave. I am sure if there was an at-grade option for either (like with Connors Rd or Bonnie Doon) the City would have chosen it in a heartbeat.
Click to expand...
Don't get me wrong, I do appreciate the efforts that City Council and the City have made to make Edmonton less car-centric (increasing walkability and density, expanding public transportation, etc), and I do like that they approved the new zoning bylaw in order to keep housing affordable.

That said it doesn't mean I agree with all their decisions though. I have at least sent messages to express any concerns and to get some context things to try to understand what's going on.

Based on the information you presented, it'd probably be best to temper my expectations from now on.
 
TravellingChris said:
I wish I could get excited. But this will be yet another example of the City cheaping out and cutting corners on legacy infrastructure. Like the at-grade crossing of University Avenue instead of a tunnel, the at-grade crossings around Kingsway, the bus stop for the Valley Line at Bonnie Doon instead of a proper elevated station, and the street furniture awkwardly plunked down on the sidewalk at Quarters instead of a proper underground station.

We are going to regret not building the elevated station and crossing at Heritage Valley as originally proposed.
Click to expand...
I only disagree with the elevated section in Bonnie Doon. It would've probably forced the line to be elevated for a significant portion of 83 St (if not all of it, with more elevated stations, or no stations at all there) and it would have been absolutely dreadful. I don't even live there, but I would've been entirely against it.

Would've beaten the whole purpose of being a neighborhood friendly, less obtrusive line. I could've gotten behind that intersection being tunneled under 82 Ave, but I'll maintain that elevating it would've been the worst possible decision from an urbanística perspective.

I also don't really like long elevated sections near residential areas at all, unless absolutely necessary. Davies, Mis and WEM make sense, but I prefer underground or at grade.
Might have something to do with the fact that, where I come from, elevated sections of metro/LRT are usually relegated to very degraded areas, but I genuinely don't like them, and don't get this much "big city vibes" from it.

Honestly, I get more big city vibes from having the underground section DT, and even the at grade VL sections DT. A SkyTrain-like system does not appeal to me whatsoever.
 
Last edited:
SumAqua said:
Don't get me wrong, I do appreciate the efforts that City Council and the City have made to make Edmonton less car-centric (increasing walkability and density, expanding public transportation, etc), and I do like that they approved the new zoning bylaw in order to keep housing affordable.

That said it doesn't mean I agree with all their decisions though. I have at least sent messages to express any concerns and to get some context things to try to understand what's going on.

Based on the information you presented, it'd probably be best to temper my expectations from now on.
Click to expand...

Well, one thing that surprised me was that Twin Brooks station was added back in, and stayed in when other things got cut.

ChazYEG said:
I only disagree with the elevated section in Bonnie Doon. It would've probably forced the line to be elevated for a significant portion of 83 St (if not all of it, with more elevated stations, or no stations at all there) and it would have been absolutely dreadful. I don't even live there, but I would've been entirely against it.

Would've beaten the whole purpose of being a neighborhood friendly, less obtrusive line. I could've gotten behind that intersection being tunneled under 82 Ave, but I'll maintain that elevating it would've been the worst possible decision from an urbanística perspective.

I also don't really like long elevated sections near residential areas at all, unless absolutely necessary. Davies, Mis and WEM make sense, but I prefer underground or at grade.
Might have something to do with the fact that, where I come from, elevated sections of metro/LRT are usually relegated to very degraded areas, but I genuinely don't like them, and don't get this much "big city vibes" from it.

Honestly, I get more big city vibes from having the underground section DT, and even the at grade VL sections DT. A SkyTrain-like system does not appeal to me whatsoever.
Click to expand...

I don't think it would be that bad? The ramp over Argyll only protrudes a couple blocks into Avonmore, and I can't imagine it would be much different for Whyte.
 
ChazYEG said:
I only disagree with the elevated section in Bonnie Doon. It would've probably forced the line to be elevated for a significant portion of 83 St (if not all of it, with more elevated stations, or no stations at all there) and it would have been absolutely dreadful. I don't even live there, but I would've been entirely against it.

Would've beaten the whole purpose of being a neighborhood friendly, less obtrusive line. I could've gotten behind that intersection being tunneled under 82 Ave, but I'll maintain that elevating it would've been the worst possible decision from an urbanística perspective.

I also don't really like long elevated sections near residential areas at all, unless absolutely necessary. Davies, Mis and WEM make sense, but I prefer underground or at grade.
Might have something to do with the fact that, where I come from, elevated sections of metro/LRT are usually relegated to very degraded areas, but I genuinely don't like them, and don't get this much "big city vibes" from it.

Honestly, I get more big city vibes from having the underground section DT, and even the at grade VL sections DT. A SkyTrain-like system does not appeal to me whatsoever.
Click to expand...
Yes, one of the advantages we actually have is we are not as constrained as Vancouver or older very built up cities. Having to deal with stairs, elevators and escalators (that seem to frequently not work) doesn't make transit more accessible or easy to use for riders, in fact the opposite. I suppose those elevated sections elsewhere look impressive, but really they should be a last resort and used sparingly only when absolutely necessary.
 
There will be pylons and elevated track in front of homes on a section of 87 Avenue with the Valley Line, and for a brief section behind people's homes west of 178 Street. I'd say that's the price for living on a busy corridor, just like 83 Street.
 
TravellingChris said:
There will be pylons and elevated track in front of homes on a section of 87 Avenue with the Valley Line, and for a brief section behind people's homes west of 178 Street. I'd say that's the price for living on a busy corridor, just like 83 Street.
Click to expand...
These roads are incredibly wider than 83 st, and the houses are set back further. On top of that, 87 Ave was always a major arterial, with a commercial presence that is not on 83 st.

You're comparing apples to oranges here.

Foolworm said:
I don't think it would be that bad? The ramp over Argyll only protrudes a couple blocks into Avonmore, and I can't imagine it would be much different for Whyte.
Click to expand...

It's actually more than just a couple of blocks. It's not completely raised yet by the point in which it crosses Argyll, and after, it continues on elevated. The whole ramp rises over roughly 6 blocks. If you take the same inclination ove Whyte, it would mean being back at street level just about a block north of the stop, to then start to rise again immediately after. This would make little sense.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top