LRT Expansion Planning

[Avenuer]

At-Grade LRT down Whyte likely won't ever happen given the Provincial Historic Area designation of Old Strathcona, narrow ROW that competes with wide sidewalks, vehicle lanes and treed medians. If there was a complementary E-W vehicular route a few blocks north or south then it would likely be easier to eat away at the existing vehicular lanes in order to implement at-grade LRT. However, I don't see any good alternatives on the horizon (unless the CPR Irvine lands become City-owned and the COE can punch-through 76 Avenue to connect Calgary Trail to 99 Street).

 

[Daveography]

76 Ave would be an inappropriate replacement for commuter traffic.

 

[Avenuer]

76 Ave would be an inappropriate replacement for commuter traffic.

I agree it wouldn't be a great option, but it presents a connection nonetheless. Other than that, there aren't any other crosstown routes until 63 Ave, which is too far from Whyte Ave to be a good alternative.

 

[The_Cat]

This could be a little more expensive suggestion, but I think having an LRT going down Whyte, until Mill Creek. Then it cross on its own bridge to 81 Avenue. The line could then run underground from 95 Street to 112 Street, and turn north at the U of A hospital continuing to the U of A. There could be stops at 99 Street, Gateway/104 Street, 109 Street and the u of A Hospital.

 

[Edmcowboy11]

^As much as I'd love to see LRT run underground from 95 to 112, I'd say we'd have a better chance of hosting both the next world cup and summer olympics. Look how hard it was to convince the city to elevate the LRT line over 82 ave near Bonnie Doon, and that was only for about 3 blocks. Oh sorry, they didn't build that, sorry to sound like a downer.

 

[archited]

Running an LRT line down Whyte Avenue is definitely the wrong solution. I favor the idea of 76th Avenue as the best surface solution (if you extend it eastward it hits Sherwood Park right in the belly; and if you extend it westward it connects across the river to the Valley Zoo); my next favorite answer is the one suggested by @The_Cat. Whyte Avenue could be well served by a slowly ambling ERRS line.

 

[Daveography]

^As much as I'd love to see LRT run underground from 95 to 112, I'd say we'd have a better chance of hosting both the next world cup and summer olympics. Look how hard it was to convince the city to elevate the LRT line over 82 ave near Bonnie Doon, and that was only for about 3 blocks. Oh sorry, they didn't build that, sorry to sound like a downer.

The city's own numbers showed very little value in elevating the line here - adding millions of added expense for what amounted to 1-2 minutes of reduced travel times 10-20 years down the road (and for let's face it, mainly to the benefit of Sherwood Park commuters over City of Edmonton residents).

 

[Edmcowboy11]

The city's own numbers showed very little value in elevating the line here - adding millions of added expense for what amounted to 1-2 minutes of reduced travel times 10-20 years down the road (and for let's face it, mainly to the benefit of Sherwood Park commuters over City of Edmonton residents).

And that was definitely my point. If their assessment at 82 ave and Bonnie Doon was that, burying LRT for multiple blocks just would never be in the cards.

 

[The_Cat]

I think a temporary solution could be bus lanes from 95 to 112 Street, along with priority signals for buses. I think a parkade could be built to accommodate cars.

 

[cliffapotamus]

I think a temporary solution could be bus lanes from 95 to 112 Street, along with priority signals for buses. I think a parkade could be built to accommodate cars.

^^yup. Some kind of BRT would be a great 20-30 year solution for this area. by that point hopefully the density and land values in the area would make an LRT tunnel cost-justified. Tunnels can triple to cost of an LRT line over running at-grade, and complicate stop spacing, and the station boxes can be very disruptive to construct. I think BRT would support increased development in the meantime, until all those costs for LRT can be justified.

 

[Daveography]

I think a temporary solution could be bus lanes from 95 to 112 Street, along with priority signals for buses. I think a parkade could be built to accommodate cars.

Parkades just draw more cars and traffic - the opposite of what the area needs.

 

[The_Cat]

The parkade could replace parallel parking on the street.

 

[Aaron_Lloyd]

Been ages since I've seen anyone's aspirational LRT designs, there were a bunch on C2E back in the day (some pretty wacky ones too). I was inspired by some discussion about using the heritage tram tracks as a regular LRT to come up with this plan for a Centre LRT on the cheap (presumably cheaper anyways using the pre-existing heritage tram RoW and tracks). I don't think I've seen anyone suggest a route like this, could be wrong.

Turn the Valley Line into two lines, one via Downtown the other via Strathcona. Also optionally have a nice Central Circular line to take people between the two.
Full Google Maps: https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1N941xfutAlySCQNKwLjdrbFSicBNojUh&usp=sharing

 

[The_Cat]

As much as I like this idea, I think the High Level bridge might have to be rebuilt.

 

[Aaron_Lloyd]

Yah, I remember they mentioned they weren't even sure the top deck could handle full LRT use as is. Does anyone know if the city has an official EOL date in mind for High Level?