News   Apr 03, 2020
From the Editor: A Message to Our Readers
 8.3K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
Topping Off March 2020: What's Hot on SkyriseEdmonton
 9.6K     0 
News   Apr 02, 2020
News Roundup for April 2, 2020
 3.1K     0 

Capital Line LRT

David A said:
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.
Click to expand...
I personally don't even think they look impressive, at least in most situations.

For once, they make for a very poor street level experience, blocking sunlight and creating a very claustrophobic feel. I understand that sometimes they're needed, and have the same benefits (transit-wise) of an underground line, such as higher speeds, and full grade separation.

All of these are incompatible with low-floor, neighborhood friendly transit. The goals are different for high-volume-high-speed metro-style lines and for things like the Valley Line.

I would've not opposed if the Capital Line was fully elevated down 111 st, for example. It would've made a lot of sense, especially considering that the two stations we have there are already "elevated" anyways, and it is a very wide arterial, with huge setbacks from the houses that back onto it. Having full grade separation there would make A LOT of sense and benefit everyone.

I think the same about the section that goes from DT to Coliseum, since the number of houses impacted would be minimal, and having the at grade crossings in this section is horrible.

Same goes for the Metro Line crossings at Royal Alex/Kingsway/NAIT. All of these should've been grade separated. I do believe the best option there would've been to bury the line, however. Cut-and-cover wouldn't have been significantly disruptive, especially in the section that would've seen the most people affected by an elevated section (106st, which is not exactly a major thoroughfare).
 
ChazYEG said:
I personally don't even think they look impressive, at least in most situations.

For once, they make for a very poor street level experience, blocking sunlight and creating a very claustrophobic feel. I understand that sometimes they're needed, and have the same benefits (transit-wise) of an underground line, such as higher speeds, and full grade separation.

All of these are incompatible with low-floor, neighborhood friendly transit. The goals are different for high-volume-high-speed metro-style lines and for things like the Valley Line.

I would've not opposed if the Capital Line was fully elevated down 111 st, for example. It would've made a lot of sense, especially considering that the two stations we have there are already "elevated" anyways, and it is a very wide arterial, with huge setbacks from the houses that back onto it. Having full grade separation there would make A LOT of sense and benefit everyone.

I think the same about the section that goes from DT to Coliseum, since the number of houses impacted would be minimal, and having the at grade crossings in this section is horrible.

Same goes for the Metro Line crossings at Royal Alex/Kingsway/NAIT. All of these should've been grade separated. I do believe the best option there would've been to bury the line, however. Cut-and-cover wouldn't have been significantly disruptive, especially in the section that would've seen the most people affected by an elevated section (106st, which is not exactly a major thoroughfare).
Click to expand...
Oh, and I also think that the capital line should've stayed underground from the University Station until resurfacing to be fully elevated on 111 St.
 
Capture.PNG

This must be a brand new render since the city kaiboshed the elevated station and replaced it with an at grade. I'm ok with this!
www.edmonton.ca

2024 Mid-Season LRT Construction Update | City of Edmonton

LRT expansion plays a critical role in enhancing mobility and access for Edmontonians and will transform the way people live, work and play in the city for decades to come.
www.edmonton.ca www.edmonton.ca
 
Last edited:
MacLac said:
View attachment 522343
This must be a brand new render since the city kaiboshed the elevated station and replaced it with an at grade. I'm ok with this!
Click to expand...

I don't like it because this fancy structure looks like a 'permanent' design. I would prefer a temporary one like the old NAIT station, because then it means that they're still safeguarding an eventual flyover across Ellerslie.
 
Foolworm said:
I don't like it because this fancy structure looks like a 'permanent' design. I would prefer a temporary one like the old NAIT station, because then it means that they're still safeguarding an eventual flyover across Ellerslie.
Click to expand...
I think Ellerslie should have an underpass, maintaining an at grade station. Elevated stations have accessibility, cost, and safety downsides to them. After seeing the VLSE, and the new Stadium Station, my mind is made up that I prefer the newer style of station design.
 
Barnaby said:
I think Ellerslie should have an underpass, maintaining an at grade station. Elevated stations have accessibility, cost, and safety downsides to them. After seeing the VLSE, and the new Stadium Station, my mind is made up that I prefer the newer style of station design.
Click to expand...

If that were possible an elevated station wouldn't be needed in the first place, an at-grade station with flyover would have sufficed. There must be some other reason for elevating over Ellerslie, especially since they are able to tunnel under 23 Ave.

It's the same with Metro line over the CN Yard, a tunnel seems to be the obvious solution but they went with a massive bridge instead and there must be a reason for that.
 
Foolworm said:
If that were possible an elevated station wouldn't be needed in the first place, an at-grade station with flyover would have sufficed. There must be some other reason for elevating over Ellerslie, especially since they are able to tunnel under 23 Ave.

It's the same with Metro line over the CN Yard, a tunnel seems to be the obvious solution but they went with a massive bridge instead and there must be a reason for that.
Click to expand...

If you are a pedestrian or cyclist, would rather cross the Yellowhead and the CN railyard over a massive bridge or through a dark tunnel?
 
Gronk! said:
If you are a pedestrian or cyclist, would rather cross the Yellowhead and the CN railyard over a massive bridge or through a dark tunnel?
Click to expand...

Personally, I'd take a well-lit and ventilated tunnel over a bridge where I'm constantly buffeted by the wind and breathing diesel fumes from the trains below.

That being said, I think the issue boils down to all that contaminated dirt that would be dug out for the tunnel ($$$), which a bridge wouldn't have to deal with.
 
ChazYEG said:
Oh, and I also think that the capital line should've stayed underground from the University Station until resurfacing to be fully elevated on 111 St.
Click to expand...
then you fail to recognize the historic problems with tunnelling in that area and the associated costs. Belgravia would of never been built and lastly much of that stretch was built on vacant or nearly vacant land.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top