[Barnaby]

Now hear me out, it's almost 7 metres wide, the trains are about 2.6m wide? We can make it fit. We're going to have to shuffle lanes arounds, move the SUP over, move the counterflow lane over, but it'll work.

View attachment 623867

An issue with this would be the extreme elevation change from the Yellowhead guideway portion to this underpass. The 97th Street route wouldn't make sense at grade, so it would need to go back up to a guideway immediately past this crossing.

The 100m crossing wouldn't be that expensive, and it would allow for complete grade separation from Blatchford to 153 Avenue, where at grade LRT will probably be preferred by most stakeholders.

 

[dkazzed]

We would unfortunately have the at grade intersection at 127 St but it can go up above grade afterward up to beyond 137 Ave. I think between Griesbach and Evansdale/Dickenfield should be at grade, and then grade separate at 153 Ave. Maybe take out the left turn at 127 Ave and turn it into a three rights configuration to make that left.

The 100m crossing will definitely be a lot less expensive than the 500m+ crossing.

 

[thommyjo]

Carrying this over from the Valley Line thread. Obviously the Valley line can't head south much more than maybe River Cree, so I've always wondered what the area south of the whitemud would need for LRT.

I wonder if a line like this could work?

There's ROW along 199st that could give a good N/S start to the line.
Cross the Henday at callingwood, which has ROW on the south side for a decent chunk of it as well (2 lane road was never made 4 lanes)
Go north on 178st to capture the density, redevelopment potential, and shopping centre there.
East at the YMCA/School/Library/Park as a major destination
North at 170st. Again, ROW space.
87 ave is where it gets tricky with VLW. I think you go underground after crossing the whitemud, turn east down 87ave. Stay underground until the river crossing to UofA.
87 ave in Uni is a station, then head east for a 109st station, then onto Whyte.

High Floor to ensure speed. Misecordia, Meadowlark, Health Sciences, and Bonnie Doon would be intersections with other lines. Very short transfers to WEM and Downtown. Serves 200,000 residents who will leave south of whitemud and west of river.

Thoughts? Is this dumb?

 

[The_Cat]

I think this line is interesting. Edmonton needs some kind of crossing between University and West Edmonton.

 

[yeggator]

Carrying this over from the Valley Line thread. Obviously the Valley line can't head south much more than maybe River Cree, so I've always wondered what the area south of the whitemud would need for LRT.

I wonder if a line like this could work?

High Floor to ensure speed. Misecordia, Meadowlark, Health Sciences, and Bonnie Doon would be intersections with other lines. Very short transfers to WEM and Downtown. Serves 200,000 residents who will leave south of whitemud and west of river.

Thoughts? Is this dumb?

View attachment 676778

This kind of looks like a high-floor line I had in mind for serving the West Side in a more southwest-to-northwest direction:

I gave up on the prospect of ever ramming LRT through Parkview and Laurier Heights. On top of that, I've heard that it was extremely difficult to convince the University to allow the LRT to run through the North Campus, so I also gave up on the notion of running another LRT line through the center of campus. Hence, I did the next best thing: create a one-seat ride from University to WEM via Telus World of Science/Coronation Park and Rec, Westmount, 124th Street and Jasper Ave. I'm not sure the tracks between Corona and Health Sciences station could accommodate 3 separate lines each with 5-minute frequencies, but oh well, I just stuck em on the same tracks and bridge to save money. I then had the yellow line split off to serve Whyte Ave and beyond (Capilano and Sherwood Park).

Good call on running the alignment along Callingwood Road instead of Lessard (like I did), since the former has a wider ROW. And very good call on extending it down to Mask Trail. I've been so worried for what traffic will look like in that area, with how isolated it is from the rest of the city (all the traffic gets funneled onto the Henday), so having rapid transit down there will be so important!

 

[yeggator]

I included the spans of the current planned bridge, and what the 97th Street alignment would be. It would require a steel girder bridge for the CN crossing, but no supports on CN land would be needed.

The elevated stations could be build with BART style fare gates, and barebones like the Canada Line. The trains could also run at 80-90 kmh for 97th portion.

View attachment 623551

You can actually shave off another 15-20 meters of the length of the span by crossing the tracks on the east side of 97th Street, although it involves demolishing the Mitsubishi dealership. The savings might be worth it though. 80 meters is roughly the length of a single span on the Menzies Bridge, so you could build a regular bridge that doesn't even touch the freight tracks.

 

[thommyjo]

This kind of looks like a high-floor line I had in mind for serving the West Side in a more southwest-to-northwest direction:
View attachment 676807View attachment 676806
I gave up on the prospect of ever ramming LRT through Parkview and Laurier Heights. On top of that, I've heard that it was extremely difficult to convince the University to allow the LRT to run through the North Campus, so I also gave up on the notion of running another LRT line through the center of campus. Hence, I did the next best thing: create a one-seat ride from University to WEM via Telus World of Science/Coronation Park and Rec, Westmount, 124th Street and Jasper Ave. I'm not sure the tracks between Corona and Health Sciences station could accommodate 3 separate lines each with 5-minute frequencies, but oh well, I just stuck em on the same tracks and bridge to save money. I then had the yellow line split off to serve Whyte Ave and beyond (Capilano and Sherwood Park).

Good call on running the alignment along Callingwood Road instead of Lessard (like I did), since the former has a wider ROW. And very good call on extending it down to Mask Trail. I've been so worried for what traffic will look like in that area, with how isolated it is from the rest of the city (all the traffic gets funneled onto the Henday), so having rapid transit down there will be so important!

I don’t mind this. A 111ave and jasper ave line would be great. But I think the industrial areas cover too much of this line. And 170st isn’t great for ridership capturing either probably.

I like the direct WEM connection vs a transfer in my route. But I think it’s the only way unless you go up 178st vs 170th. But there’s a lot less space then.

I think a direct connection from WEM to UofA is critical and necessary. There has to be a way. It’s a massive bottleneck and creates a real divide between south and west central, which are where a ton of future growth will be concentrated. UofA is a bigger trip generator than almost anywhere else too for suburbanites.

 

[BrettB]

Pie in the sky: LRT from WEM -> elevated above Whitemud -> Fox Drive -> South Campus -> then assumes the Metro Line's current route.

I suggest this because Route 4 is one of the most frequent across the system, 7 days/week.

 

[ChazYEG]

This kind of looks like a high-floor line I had in mind for serving the West Side in a more southwest-to-northwest direction:
View attachment 676807View attachment 676806
I gave up on the prospect of ever ramming LRT through Parkview and Laurier Heights. On top of that, I've heard that it was extremely difficult to convince the University to allow the LRT to run through the North Campus, so I also gave up on the notion of running another LRT line through the center of campus. Hence, I did the next best thing: create a one-seat ride from University to WEM via Telus World of Science/Coronation Park and Rec, Westmount, 124th Street and Jasper Ave. I'm not sure the tracks between Corona and Health Sciences station could accommodate 3 separate lines each with 5-minute frequencies, but oh well, I just stuck em on the same tracks and bridge to save money. I then had the yellow line split off to serve Whyte Ave and beyond (Capilano and Sherwood Park).

Good call on running the alignment along Callingwood Road instead of Lessard (like I did), since the former has a wider ROW. And very good call on extending it down to Mask Trail. I've been so worried for what traffic will look like in that area, with how isolated it is from the rest of the city (all the traffic gets funneled onto the Henday), so having rapid transit down there will be so important!

This is not too different from what I once proposed, with a few key differences.

I would not maintain current lines as they are, and instead would have all high floor lines as.

1 - I'd have Capital Line be NE to W, from Clareview to Corona and then continuing more or less on the alignment you drew up towards the west, going down Jasper Ave, up 124 st, West on 111 Ave and then straight south. Transfer to VLW at WEM and down Callingwood Rd.

2 - I'd have Metro line me NW-S/ Blatchford (and future, St Albert) to Heritage valley (and eventually EIA).

3- The aligntment you drew coming from the East, through Capilano, Bonnie Doon and White Ave would be E-SW, meeting my new Metro Line at Health Sciences and going down to what appears to be your vision for Metro Line (the red alignment on the south), through Fox Drive and Terwillegar, all the way to Windermere. Let's call it Energy Line

The advantages of that is that we'd still only have two lines going through the DT tunnels, and only two stations with two lines haring the tracks south of the river. This would open the possibility for something that I would love to see (but is unlikely):

4 - A line going from N-S down 97 st, coming from the Garrison and going straight south, then turning SW on Princes Elizabeth Ave to meet Metro Line at NAIT, then going underground at Kingsway and down 109 st, Intersecting VLW at McEwan and Metro and Capital Lines at Corona and continuing down through to the either the University (which would be my terminus of choice, if the decision is to not have any extra infrastructure) or follow a new HLB down the CN alignment, alongside a potential HSR line all the way to South Edmonton Common. (Let's call it Festival Line)

I'd also do the VLW expansion towards River Cree that was posted here, and on the VLSE down 66 st towards Summerside.

In this scenario:

Corona Station would effectively become the city's most prominent station, connecting 3 High Floor LRT lines and HSR, serving as a transfer point to W and SW (The Grange, via WEM), N (garrison), NE (Clareview) and NW (St Albert), S (Airport and SEC) and SW (Windermere).

Our three largest educational institutions would be directly served by at least 2 lines:
U of A: Energy and Metro lines
McEwan: Festival and Valley line
NAIT: Metro and Festival lines

All but one (Londonderry) of our major shopping centres would be served by the LRT (and it would be hilarious to see SEC served by rail to piss off NIMBY suburbanites):

WEM: Valley and Capital lines
Kingsway: Festival and Metro lines
Southgate: Metro Line
SEC: Festival Line
Currents of Windermere: Festival Line

All of our major attractions (in addition to DT and WEM) would also be connected to the network:

TWoS: Capital Line
Muttart: Valley Line
Fort Edmonton Park: Energy Line
Whyte Ave/Old Strathcona: Energy Line
River Cree: Valley Line

Headways could be kept at 5 min for all lines for peak hours (and even 3 minutes if CBTC is implemented properly).

 

[thommyjo]

Pie in the sky: LRT from WEM -> elevated above Whitemud -> Fox Drive -> South Campus -> then assumes the Metro Line's current route.

I suggest this because Route 4 is one of the most frequent across the system, 7 days/week.

How does an LRT operate above the whitemud? Overpasses? Pillars in medians?

How do people get to stations? Or are there no stations between WEM and South campus?

That would be crazy expensive, offer few time savings on the bus routes, and stress capacity on the existing lines vs adding a new line.

 

[itom987]

LRTs going down freeways won't encourage people to use it. Why bother when you can drive.

 

[BrettB]

Elevate it. Just like the SkyTrain over the Lougheed Highway.

Someone else made the point, which I think is valid, that LRT will never be going through Laurier Heights for a straight shot across the river. Too many wealthy, politically-connected home owners in the way.

The West End to University is an extremely popular route (judging by the number of busses every hour) so eventually, we'll have to find a way to link those major destinations.

 

[yeggator]

The West End to University is an extremely popular route (judging by the number of busses every hour)

And judging by the fact that a Route 4 fam account exists

 

[yeggator]

LRTs going down freeways won't encourage people to use it. Why bother when you can drive.

There’s a caveat. If the stations themselves are within a freeway ROW, the transit becomes unattractive. But if you place stations within the community and you’re only using the freeway ROW to link up the train between them, not only can you exploit the existing grade-separated infrastructure, but you can also run the trains faster along the freeway and make it more enticing for drivers.

 

[The_Cat]

One argument for building the LRT along Whitemud, how many traffic jams occur along this freeway, particularly at the Quesnell Bridge, which backs traffic up to 170 Street or 111 Street? The LRT could be an advantage.