[EdwardEdm]

I'll stick to my prior comments about going further north on 97st, especially now that there's potential to get a bigger than usual federal contribution as part of the 1.5% GDP defence infrastructure spending target.

It also seems like building an LRT line to St Albert just isn't worth the effort. Tax demarcation aside, the city doesn't really have a great layout for an LRT route within.

And yet St. Albert has done planning for a route: https://stalbert.ca/dev/engineering/transportation/projects/lrt/
St. Albert seems me a far better place to spend money than LRT to Lancaster Park, regardless of who's money it is. It would eliminate a lot of commuter buses between St. Albert and Edmonton. Of course, St. Albert would need to be able to fund their extension, and I hope that appetite is still there if/ when the time comes.

I've mentioned before my thinking on sticking with the current plan is because it provides a brand new route from the northwest to Downtown, avoiding any existing congestion. It means users in the northwest aren't typically having to travel to 97 St first to get Downtown. This should reduce existing travel times which is an incentive to for people to take transit.
How would bus routes and commuters from Clareview to get Downtown or to the University look if we didn't have the LRT?
I think 97 St is better served by it's own separate LRT corridor via a direct routing from Downtown down 97 St.

With the VLSE, travel times between Mill Woods and Downtown were not significantly changed at about 30 minutes. Now, there's a huge number of differences, including that that VLSE makes more stops, and therefore serves more intermediate passengers than the prior express buses did. The VLW is likely to have travel times that are within a few minutes of existing buses, but some of those travel times look to be longer and existing bus routes.

Given this precedence, I could see an LRT trip taking longer using one of these 97 St alignments which then swings over to Blatchford, and certainly the existing Metro Line alignment doesn't exactly lend itself to speedy operation.

With the abundant width of 97 St, what would be the chances of an elevated LRT would actually being built before it gets chanced to street level to save costs? We couldn't even afford to keep the Ellerslie Station grade separated.

Edit: I also don't see a feasible commuter rail route into St. Albert that would be any better/ cheaper than LRT, even if it is somehow lumped in with a Alberta Government HST line. And the existing railway corridors go nowhere near the heart of St. Albert.

 

[VaultBoy]

I personally hope they stick with the original plan. It’s a much-needed northwest connection to the LRT network, and it also aligns with St. Albert’s existing plans for the corridor, in my opinion.

The original bridge plan would also add a pedestrian and cycling crossing over the rail yards from Blatchford.

It’s not like a 97 Street route couldn’t still happen in the future, and in the meantime, they could still implement dedicated BRT service along 97 Street.

 

[Star Strider]

One person suggested that the LRT goes into the YHT median and just elevate it to compensate for the tight 6 m squeeze, which, um... that idea sounds so expensive and complicated you might as well do the bridge over the railyard,

There isn't anything particularly expensive about skytrain style elevated guideways. Vancouver does it extensively, Calgary and Edmonton also have portions of lines built this way already.
It's a well established known method used around the world.

What is expensive is long clear span bridges.

 

[Edmcowboy11]

There isn't anything particularly expensive about skytrain style elevated guideways. Vancouver does it extensively, Calgary and Edmonton also have portions of lines built this way already.
It's a well established known method used around the world.

What is expensive is long clear span bridges.

I think one of the problems is that there is a perception here that elevated guideways for trains is visually unappealing. I believe that there is this perception that it looks ugly and there's lots of concrete and it's something that we shouldn't see here in the prairies.

As for the other issue, I'm on the side of just building the new bridge over top of the train yards and get it done now instead of delaying and having to build this bridge 10-15 years 20 years later at Double the cost that is being quoted now.

 

[Star Strider]

And yet St. Albert has done planning for a route: https://stalbert.ca/dev/engineering/transportation/projects/lrt/
St. Albert seems me a far better place to spend money than LRT to Lancaster Park, regardless of who's money it is. It would eliminate a lot of commuter buses between St. Albert and Edmonton. Of course, St. Albert would need to be able to fund their extension, and I hope that appetite is still there if/ when the time comes.

I've mentioned before my thinking on sticking with the current plan is because it provides a brand new route from the northwest to Downtown, avoiding any existing congestion. It means users in the northwest aren't typically having to travel to 97 St first to get Downtown. This should reduce existing travel times which is an incentive to for people to take transit.
How would bus routes and commuters from Clareview to get Downtown or to the University look if we didn't have the LRT?
I think 97 St is better served by it's own separate LRT corridor via a direct routing from Downtown down 97 St.

With the VLSE, travel times between Mill Woods and Downtown were not significantly changed at about 30 minutes. Now, there's a huge number of differences, including that that VLSE makes more stops, and therefore serves more intermediate passengers than the prior express buses did. The VLW is likely to have travel times that are within a few minutes of existing buses, but some of those travel times look to be longer and existing bus routes.

Given this precedence, I could see an LRT trip taking longer using one of these 97 St alignments which then swings over to Blatchford, and certainly the existing Metro Line alignment doesn't exactly lend itself to speedy operation.

With the abundant width of 97 St, what would be the chances of an elevated LRT would actually being built before it gets chanced to street level to save costs? We couldn't even afford to keep the Ellerslie Station grade separated.

Edit: I also don't see a feasible commuter rail route into St. Albert that would be any better/ cheaper than LRT, even if it is somehow lumped in with a Alberta Government HST line. And the existing railway corridors go nowhere near the heart of St. Albert.

Huh, well color me extremely surprised by that.

What isn't surprising is that they settled on an at grade route down the middle. That's going to be a very long commute from the north end with 6 or 7 local stops, plus all the stops through Edmonton.

From a design perspective, the appeal of commuter rail is having fewer stops, making for a quicker journey. For those who have spent time in Berlin, think s-bahn vs u-bahn travel time.

The St Albert east rail line would also have a few stops within Edmonton, which could be good hubs for BRT routes as well. The western rail route doesn't, most of the ROW is through industrial areas, so after 3 or 4 stops in St Albert its a nonstop trip to Blatchford.

From a cost perspective, with ROW and rails already there, there isn't need for much land acquisition or construction. Station styles could be similar to the minimal builds from recent LRT projects. And with hydrogen powered trains, there isn't any need for expensive electrical works all along the line.

As for usability, most commuters would be using a bus to get to an LRT station too, so that seems like a wash.

I'll grant there would be more TOD options for their chosen LRT route, but there is still potential for stations along the western rail route too.

 

[Star Strider]

I think one of the problems is that there is a perception here that elevated guideways for trains is visually unappealing. I believe that there is this perception that it looks ugly and there's lots of concrete and it's something that we shouldn't see here in the prairies.

That could be. "The land here is flat and we aim to keep it that way!"

But I'll dangle a carrot for the elevated haters here, all those stations tend to come with fare gates..

 

[yeggator]

I think one of the problems is that there is a perception here that elevated guideways for trains is visually unappealing. I believe that there is this perception that it looks ugly and there's lots of concrete and it's something that we shouldn't see here in the prairies.

Bro, half of 97th Street is butt-fuck ugly can’t go lower if you add elevated rail. Hell, it would look way more urban.

Edit: (pun unintended for “can’t go lower” but a zinger nonetheless).

 

[Foolworm]

From the original Blatchford masterplan, back when it was called Connecticity.

 

[Wax]

They wanted a tram to go into blatchford??

 

[Wax]

ohhh I bet they wanted to extend the street car up 109th…

 

[Barnaby]

I beat this horse alot. Use the old ROW at Brewery to connect the VLW to the west side of Blatchford and the VIA station. You'd also serve Westmount, Inglewood, Prince Charles.

$200-300 million. Don't use fancy embedded track, just traditional ballast and bus stop style stops.

 

[Offworld]

it was called Connecticity.

Sweet Jeebuz, and you wonder why Blatchford is such a cluster-monkey. More civic tax money wasted on pointless pie-in-the-sky "planning".

 

[trevorhayden]

Tram to the VIA station was a great idea, and still possible!

 

[Wax]

They could incorporate it with bus only lanes on 109th too…

 

[EdwardEdm]

That's going to be a very long commute from the north end with 6 or 7 local stops, plus all the stops through Edmonton.

I've often wondered if an LRT trip from St. Albert might end up being longer than a bus trip. From St. Albert Center to Downtown or the University it is about 40 minutes by bus. I could see the LRT being about 30-40 minutes to Downtown so maybe the trip to the University ends up being longer? The thing with the Metro Line though is it kills 3 birds with one stone which cover all of St. Albert Transit's major destinations in Edmonton: NAIT, Downtown/ McEwan, and the U of A. That would only leave WEM with a St. Albert bus route.

From a design perspective, the appeal of commuter rail is having fewer stops, making for a quicker journey. For those who have spent time in Berlin, think s-bahn vs u-bahn travel time.

Sure, but Berlin's population is more like 4 million vs. the Edmonton regions 1.6 million. and 30,000 square km vs Edmonton's 9400 square km. Edmonton's not S-Bahn sized by along shot.

The St Albert east rail line would also have a few stops within Edmonton, which could be good hubs for BRT routes as well. The western rail route doesn't, most of the ROW is through industrial areas, so after 3 or 4 stops in St Albert its a nonstop trip to Blatchford.

Frankly, the east route (Sangudo subdivision) isn't much better. It's between industrial on one side and residential on the other. across the river is probably the best spot for a station, and at least there is residential development there. The western route, (Westlock sub) is really far out there.

From a cost perspective, with ROW and rails already there, there isn't need for much land acquisition or construction. Station styles could be similar to the minimal builds from recent LRT projects. And with hydrogen powered trains, there isn't any need for expensive electrical works all along the line.

Just because ROW and rails are there doesn't mean that there's any capacity to run a commuter service on those rails. The Sangudo sub is a non-starter as it is. While it only see I believe 2 trains (1 each direction) between Edmonton and Whitecourt and then random unit mineral trains, from the mainline to about the Henday, the sub is part of the loop track into the Edmonton Intermodal Terminal and see's frequent use. The Westlock sub is also 2 trains per day, but again they see some unit trains, this time grain, but occasional other trains. I suspect that double tracking of the corridors to St. Albert would be required. Then the question is how do you get across the CN mainline??? There's no way CN will be able to accommodate commuter trains, at times every 15 minutes, crossing over the 4 main tracks that are in place between the Bissell Yard and Walker. There's no space for the most part for another track. I really think the commuter track would need to be elevated.
On top of this, all of this just to run the commuter train to Blatchford?
So the St. Albert commuter has taken a bus to a commuter train station on the east or west ends of the city, rode a commuter train to Blatchford, and it now transferring to LRT. Yeah, that's not happening.

While this might not be the thread, as much as I love commuter trains, I don't see commuter trains happening around Edmonton anytime soon. All of our neighboring communities are too close in I feel for commuter trains, and don't have the population to support them.
That could change in the future along the HST corridor as a side benefit of it existing.
I think communities along the CN mainline would need to new tracks alongside the CN line. Edmonton is on a very busy section of the CN mainline. The mainlines from Vancouver and Prince Rupert come together just west of Jasper. The line from Grande Prairie joins at Swan Landing, Whitecourt, Fort McMurray, and Calgary at Edmonton, and then at Edmonton the Prairie North line splits off which takes some traffic away from the mainline. That puts Jasper to Edmonton as one of the busiest sections of the entire CN network. Any services to the east are further constrained by crossing the river. That is CN's choke point in Edmonton as it is, so there's pretty much 0 chance commuter trains are ever using that bridge, so a new bridge would be needed there.