Capital Line LRT

[EdmTrekker]

Yeah, that is the conundrum. First of all the MacEwan stop doesn't have the capacity to handle everyone at Rogers and second, many people are traveling on the Capital Line. It is just as easy or better for them to get off at Bay Station.

So, we could call it Bay Station/Enterprise Square/Rogers Place, which is also a bit too long, and/or we could call it MacEwan/Rogers Place which could drive people to a station that is not best suited for everyone.

Many cities use key pictograms on the inside of train maps after the Station Name. The Metro Line station named MacEwan which is directly connected to the Edmonton Arena (Rogers Place) and not MacEwan would have an arena symbol. This to make it clear to people confused by the name ETS dimwits named the station given MacEwan is a block away and across 105th. So whether the station is renamed or not the symbol would also appear. The symbol? A small gif of Rogers Place something similar.

.

 

[Gronk!]

I think that a downtown map on the PedWay/Wayfinding network would be a great help. Have the downtown map with the 95-109 Street-River Valley-106 Avenue boundary, along with LRT/trams, bike routes, arts and entertainment, parks, shopping, dining, business, education and recreation.

Having Rogers Place/Ice District on the downtown wayfinding would be most beneficial.

 

[EdwardEdm]

yup. I learned that my summer working for the city
I think it wouldn't be a stretch to expect CN to sell off their holdings on/around the bridge to the city. they've given up space further south for the MUP, and pulled up all their tracks to 66th street. the grain elevators are gone, and there's pretty much nothing industrial left along the corridor that might want rail access/a spur line or anything of the like. My layman's eye can't see any reason for CN to retain that ROW for any reason other than being territorial.

I'm not sure how much of the RoW is retained by CN. There *might* be some buried signal and fiber optic type lines still used by CN. There is no more CN track south of 66 St. The remaining trackage is owned and maintained by the ETS and was used for delivery of LRV's and material. Most recently it was used to send the 3 ex Calgary LRV's off to scrap. The trackage is however now severed from the CN network by the rebuilt 66 St and new 125 Ave crossings, so it doesn't look like it will be used for future deliveries.

 

[TagYEG]

I'm not sure how much of the RoW is retained by CN. There *might* be some buried signal and fiber optic type lines still used by CN. There is no more CN track south of 66 St. The remaining trackage is owned and maintained by the ETS and was used for delivery of LRV's and material. Most recently it was used to send the 3 ex Calgary LRV's off to scrap. The trackage is however now severed from the CN network by the rebuilt 66 St and new 125 Ave crossings, so it doesn't look like it will be used for future deliveries.

I worked on the Stadium LRT Station redevelopment and CN still has fiber in the right of way.

 

[CplKlinger]

I worked on the Stadium LRT Station redevelopment and CN still has fiber in the right of way.

Welcome to the forum! Are you able to say what the support beams at either end of the station are for? It doesn't seem like the roof will be extended out that far, but maybe I'm wrong.

 

[The_Cat]

More artwork: https://transforming.edmonton.ca/ne...find-new-platforms-for-works-at-lrt-stations/

 

[The_Cat]

Edmonton's new 15-year mass transit plan reneges on long-awaited northwest LRT extension

A long-awaited LRT expansion to Edmonton's northwest isn't recommended in the city's new mass transit plan to serve a population of 1.25-million people within the next 15 years.

edmontonjournal.com

 

[TagYEG]

Edmonton's new 15-year mass transit plan reneges on long-awaited northwest LRT extension

A long-awaited LRT expansion to Edmonton's northwest isn't recommended in the city's new mass transit plan to serve a population of 1.25-million people within the next 15 years.

edmontonjournal.com

I would like to see the Metro Line extended to 153 AV before the Capital Line gets pushed further south of Ellerslie. Actually, I would prefer they both go ahead ASAP, but if we are choosing sides...

 

[soupcrate]

I would like to see the Metro Line extended to 153 AV before the Capital Line gets pushed further south of Ellerslie. Actually, I would prefer they both go ahead ASAP, but if we are choosing sides...

Same. I'm pretty disappointed by this. I was really looking forward to that bridge over the Yellowhead.

I hope council chooses to ignore this recommendation.

 

[Glenco]

They will be able to generate more ridership extending the line south at a fraction of the cost. Makes sense to me.

 

[thommyjo]

Yeah, haven't read the exact details of the plan, but the hospital and whole Heritage Valley node is meant to be pretty big. We'd really need to annex st albert to justify the expenses NW i'd say. Heritage valley is apparently going to be the densest part of our city outside of the core in a few decades. We'll see if that happens, but if it did, that'd make sense to have LRT from early days.

 

[The_Cat]

I think the South LRT Extension will reach more people. Windermere, MacEwan and perhaps Ellerslie residents will use it. I agree Thommyjo, there needs to be definitive cost-sharing with St, Albert to build the line northwest. I think BRT/Express Transit would work well in North Edmonton.

https://pub-edmonton.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=128734

 

[The_Cat]

Looks like only Phase I is fully funded:

Capital Line - South | City of Edmonton

The Capital Line South extension preliminary design is complete. Funding commitments are in place for the Capital Line South extension.

www.edmonton.ca

 

[Platinum107]

Edmonton's new 15-year mass transit plan reneges on long-awaited northwest LRT extension

A long-awaited LRT expansion to Edmonton's northwest isn't recommended in the city's new mass transit plan to serve a population of 1.25-million people within the next 15 years.

edmontonjournal.com

I dunno guys, I think prioritizing suburban commuters over people living in existing and underserved areas of our city is a little bit of an oopsie and completely goes against the point of the CIty Plan which everyone "loves so much"

I like both projects but if one has to happen before the other, I believe that the North extension makes more sense with our city's supposed goals before extending the LRT further south.

 

[EdwardEdm]

I dunno guys, I think prioritizing suburban commuters over people living in existing and underserved areas of our city is a little bit of an oopsie and completely goes against the point of the CIty Plan which everyone "loves so much"

I like both projects but if one has to happen before the other, I believe that the North extension makes more sense with our city's supposed goals before extending the LRT further south.

One challenge of the north extension is the lack of OMF for the LRV's. There is one planned, but it is on the 3rd segment. Even for the extension to Blatchford, a new storage facility for the LRV fleet was needed. That was supposed to be built next to the ball diamond east of Wayne Gretzky Drive. One reason for going south was they would be building a new OMF on the first segment to be built, and that meant they could get by without building the storage facility along the NE line, and presumably, this will help store LRV's for when the line expands north of Blatchford.
It's a bit like how so much planning was going on with the WLRT, but they did the SELRT first because that was where the land was for the main OMF.