Which is a problem for the Capital Line when it gets extended past Ellerslie Road, and for which grade separation options have been presented.

On the other hand, there is no intent from the City to grade separate the already-built sections of Metro Line despite their own analysis showing there will be major traffic issues down the road.
 
whattheheck said:
How will the capital line run while there's major reconstruction works?
Click to expand...

My guess is that they have to sever the line north of McKernan station. With the new OMF on the extension, they could park a few trains there and run that segment independently of the the rest of the network north of Health Sciences Station (similar to how they’re currently running Link Line 2 in Seattle). Personally, I think it would be cool if we could close of part of the roadway to build diversion tracks (like they did for CN when expanding Fort Road), but the added electrification requirement might make this tough.
 
It's been nearly a year since I was out this way. Kind of disappointed that all there is where NAIT Station was is grass. Some native shrubs and trees would be nice, granted trees might be a harder sell given the catenary, although the VLSE certainly has some tall trees right next to the tracks.
PXL_20250715_182624161.jpgPXL_20250715_182626041.jpg
 
Last edited:
With BRT now proposed to Castle Downs, does anyone else think that this could mean an end to Metro Line expansion past Blatchford? It seems to alter the business case for an expensive bridge over the CN tracks (especially when LRT expansion can be reallocated south beyond Ellerslie).
 
Tropical said:
With BRT now proposed to Castle Downs, does anyone else think that this could mean an end to Metro Line expansion past Blatchford? It seems to alter the business case for an expensive bridge over the CN tracks (especially when LRT expansion can be reallocated south beyond Ellerslie).
Click to expand...
I don't think it ends it, but probably significantly delays it. It's still the most logical way to get LRT to St. Albert, and eventually that'll be needed, but I'd say many many years out.
 
The bridge connecting north Edmonton to south of the train tracks is necessary, the cost can be compensated by adding more than one mode of transportation if needed. That could include vehicles.
 
itom987 said:
The bridge connecting north Edmonton to south of the train tracks is necessary, the cost can be compensated by adding more than one mode of transportation if needed. That could include vehicles.
Click to expand...
But is it necessary with BRT connecting north Edmonton to downtown and the university? That is the question being asked.
 
You'll need to factor in things such as environmental sustainability, vehicular traffic, active transportation options, and having another crossing between 97 St and 127 St.
 
The bridge alone will cost around 30% the price of the VLW extension. Hopefully the feds cover the entirety of the bridge.

From a transport time perspective, crossing Walker Yard into DT will be like crossing the river to U of A. It'll significantly cut down travel times during rush hour for most people in the area. Could really drive ridership.

It's just going to be ridiculously expensive unless they can convince CN to allow a guideway.
 
IMO it all depends on cost estimates of construction of the line after the bridge. If you can run a ROW up say, Castle Downs Rd up to 153rd ave over to Naki park'n'ride (and then St Albert), even with the bridge it might not be all that eye watering of a project cost as far as projected ridership per KM goes relative to other LRT expansions. Plus the obvious key benefit of connecting the last remaining quadrant to LRT. Value on this can be defined in a multitude of ways than simply project cost.

Barnaby said:
From a transport time perspective, crossing Walker Yard into DT will be like crossing the river to U of A. It'll significantly cut down travel times during rush hour for most people in the area. Could really drive ridership.
Click to expand...

Funny, I was just writing the exact same comparison. Tough pill to swallow but worthwhile in the long run and especially because it further opened the doors to southern expansions that weren't (in relative terms) that expensive to capture substantial ridership.

Like I've said in other posts though, Metro Line expansion lives and dies on Fed/Prov funding.
 
itom987 said:
The bridge connecting north Edmonton to south of the train tracks is necessary, the cost can be compensated by adding more than one mode of transportation if needed. That could include vehicles.
Click to expand...
Absolutely no vehicles. Dumping a bunch of cars or buses through Blatchford would be a nightmare and defeat the concept
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top