News   Apr 03, 2020
 7.8K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 8.8K     0 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 2.9K     0 

Capital Line LRT

Let's say you're new to Edmonton and you are an LRT rider. You look at the LRT map, notice the Coliseum LRT station and assume it is referring to Rogers Place and Ice District, a good draw for tourism and for hockey fans. You hop on the LRT, disembark at the Coliseum LRT station and see Northlands Coliseum empty, shuttered and ready to be demolished. The message you may get from this experience could be "Welcome to Edmonton and Fuck You, Mr. Tourist!" I realize you're not a big fan of tourism in Edmonton, but just these little things can go a long way to making a first impression for tourists, business leaders and other newcomers. That's why the LRT station should have been renamed when Rogers Place opened in 2015.
Why would you assume that? If you're familiar with Rogers Place, Coliseum is a totally different name. Say Edmonton had called the Expo Centre or some other events venue Coliseum instead of it being the previous NHL arena and yet a tourist made the same mistake? Should there only be one reference to something that could be construed as an arena, even though it has a completely different name? Not to mention all LRT stations have maps of the transit system that clearly indicate Rogers Place.
 
@archited - so CL1, CL2, CL3 etc for the Capital Line, ML1, ML2, ML3 etc for the Metro Line, and VL1, VL2, V3 for the Valley Line?
@Barnaby - what if these tourists are unable to access Google Maps on their mobiles for various reasons? Even if they can, there's always a possibility of accessing an older version of Google Maps. For example, if I click on Google Maps on Jasper Ave in front of Rice Howard Place I get June 2019 - one year before COVID.

1706390775829.png
 
Unless a person has been living under a rock for the past 20 years, I find it quite unlikely that someone would think that the Coliseum is where the Oilers play.
With that said, if that station stays put, they should rename it Expo Centre station and have a direct link to the centre from the station.
 
Ultimately Stations exist to get people to where they need to go, and the names should reflect what is important to people who might travel to that area. They're not honorary historical buildings or museums.
The name of any station should reflect something about that area that explains to the most people, where that station is. No one should ever have to stop and say "Hey, why is this station named this??" It should be obvious.

I'm a fan of absolute utilitarian names, that best describe to the largest number of people where that station is located.
Historical names are bad imo, and I think Corona station is a bad name too and should be changed. It still means nothing to me.
Keeping the station named Coliseum would be bad, not because it would confuse tourists (although it might!) but because it inadequately describes what people might be going to that station for, now that the Coliseum is no longer a destination.
 
@archited - so CL1, CL2, CL3 etc for the Capital Line, ML1, ML2, ML3 etc for the Metro Line, and VL1, VL2, V3 for the Valley Line?
No, not that I was simply making a point in favor of naming stations that make sense as to their location, saying that numbering the stations would be (sarcastically) as effective as misnaming them in terms of words that define a "has-been" circumstance that no longer applies. Although, on a lighter note we could number the Coliseum Station #99 and the Bay station #1 and the Corona Station f-f-f-me I'm drunk!
 
In support of @Gronk!'s argument -- if there is no purpose in naming stations as a destination guide, then why bother to name them at all... just number them.
Congratulations, you've completely missed the mark!

Ultimately Stations exist to get people to where they need to go, and the names should reflect what is important to people who might travel to that area. They're not honorary historical buildings or museums.
The name of any station should reflect something about that area that explains to the most people, where that station is. No one should ever have to stop and say "Hey, why is this station named this??" It should be obvious.

I'm a fan of absolute utilitarian names, that best describe to the largest number of people where that station is located.
Historical names are bad imo, and I think Corona station is a bad name too and should be changed. It still means nothing to me.
Keeping the station named Coliseum would be bad, not because it would confuse tourists (although it might!) but because it inadequately describes what people might be going to that station for, now that the Coliseum is no longer a destination.
The point is that these names are not merely "honorary historical buildings or museums" - they have transcended the namesake that has since gone the way of the dodo and become a reference point for a given geographic area. People will say "Coliseum area" far more than they will Parkdale or Montrose. It's more a reference to an area and a station than an old barn. A similar argument can be made for Corona downtown.
 
Of all the things to do, I think renaming Coliseum is a low priority. And, personally, I think it's a cool name that rolls of the tongue nicely with aspirational evocations while paying homage to the history of the area (even if there won't be other remnants). Northlands is much more generic, and Expo could be anywhere. Likewise, renaming Corona (a sharp, snappy name that also pays homage to the area) to the utterly generic "Warehouse Park Station" is a downgrade IMO. These names have gone far beyond the original reference to a specific place and are now more simply the word for a given area of the city. People say "Coliseum area" and "Corona" connotes a specific part of downtown irrespective of if its namesake still exists, so it's not like the words are meaningless.

If we're doing any renaming, it should be getting rid of the absurd preference for hyphenated names. Does the City realize that LRT stations can just be snappy and to the point? South Campus is not near Fort Edmonton (I know this is an old controversy), NAIT/Blatchford Mkt can just be NAIT, etc.
Perhaps confusion or laziness is their priority. If you are going to rebuild it, or physically move it and the building it was named after is being torn down, don't you think that is precisely the time to think about whether the name really makes any sense, any more?

Coliseum in many places indicates a venue for sporting events, so yes it could be confusing particularly to visitors if it the venue no longer exists.

However, I would agree about the hyphenated names - it seems like the sort of thing designed by CYA bureaucrats. It has gotten out of hand and is confusing. - South Campus is South Campus, NAIT is NAIT. Keep it short and sweet and clear.
 
The point is that these names are not merely "honorary historical buildings or museums" - they have transcended the namesake that has since gone the way of the dodo and become a reference point for a given geographic area. People will say "Coliseum area" far more than they will Parkdale or Montrose. It's more a reference to an area and a station than an old barn. A similar argument can be made for Corona downtown.
True enough, but people will also say "118th" to refer to the area, which is why i think that's the most appropriate name for the station, given that as a descriptor "118 Avenue Station" is more accurate than "Coliseum Station" with the coliseum soon to be gone. To be clear, not every station should be named for the numbered road it is on, but 118th is an appropriate moniker because of how people use it to refer to the area.
We would only still refer to the area as Coliseum because of the station, which seems pretty backwards to me.
 
Some people may say still Coliseum now, but that name will recede, especially after the building is gone, while Parkdale or Montrose may become used more to identify the area.

Naming LRT stations is not rocket science and it often does make sense to use neighbourhood or area names. Our civic administrators make this more complicated than it need be. 118 Ave is also a good choice too.
 
West valley line has good station names. Clear and geographical/based on stop attraction (WEM, Mis)

Capital line should update the names to better serve all users (not just long time Edmontonians or veteran transit users)

1. Century park
2. Southgate
3. South campus (no fort ed)
4. Health sciences jubilee (sure. Could argue for UofA Hospital instead of health sciences for clarity)
5. University
6. Government centre
7. Jasper & 107st (not Corona)
8. jasper & 104st (not Bay enterprise)
9. Jasper & 100st (not central)
10. Churchill (could add to the announcement, but not official name, depart here for downtown library, city hall, citedal, and winspear).
11. Stadium
12. Parkdale/Exhibition
13. 119th ave & Expo Centre
14. Belvedere
15. Claireview
 
My renaming suggestions would be similar to @thommyjo 's suggestions except for the following:
Corona -> Warehouse Park
Bay/Enterprise -> 4th St Promenade
Central - I'd say leave well enough alone
Churchill -> Churchill Square
Coliseum -> Northlands
 
I don't really mind hyphenated names as long as they make sense (South Campus/Ft Ed is asinine) since most people just say the more notable part of the name anyways. While I like perpendicular streets being in names (especially downtown) I think they should still include their original names since they give them some personality IMO. I also think announcements should have actual wayfinding for most stations which is found in so many cities already.
Ex.
Corona/107 St (Alight for Capital Blvd, Norquest College, and Warehouse Park)
Bay/104 St (Alight for 4th St promenade, Enterprise Square, and Beaver Hills House Park)
Rice Howard - Central is so generic (Alight for Rice Howard Way, City Centre Mall, Hotel MacDonald, and 100 st Funicular)

Could also include frequent and express bus routes in the wayfinding announcements, just brainstorming these on the spot so they're not flawless.
 

Back
Top