Edmonton WLRT - Which Route is the Best? - Page 2

Beltliner · #21 Posted **Apr 16, 2008, 7:54 PM**

Actually, the bottom blue line of WEM-Meadowlark-Stony Plain Road-107 Avenue-105 Avenue would work well if there is some serious redevelopment in the cards for north of the CNR downtown. If you can extend that line through an interchange at Central to Connors Road, Boonie Doon, and Mill Woods, you'll have two solid legs of a typical Russkiy/Sovyetskiy Triangle that you can then complete with a Sherwood Park-Whyte Avenue-University-St Albert line.

Jasper and one o nin · #22 Posted **Apr 16, 2008, 8:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beltliner

Actually, the bottom blue line of WEM-Meadowlark-Stony Plain Road-107 Avenue-105 Avenue would work well if there is some serious redevelopment in the cards for north of the CNR downtown. If you can extend that line through an interchange at Central to Connors Road, Boonie Doon, and Mill Woods, you'll have two solid legs of a typical Russkiy/Sovyetskiy Triangle that you can then complete with a Sherwood Park-Whyte Avenue-University-St Albert line.

Im picking up what you're laying down.

Edmonchuck · #23 Posted **Apr 16, 2008, 10:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin_foster

87th Ave just blatently makes most sense.. it's direct, shorter than all others, and probably end up being the most economical. Although the bridge might end up costing a pretty penny...

I really don't like the 107th ave route, seems too out of the way - but I suppose it is far enough north that you could bridge a connection to North West Edmonton a bit better... and perhaps St. Albert

Don't forget the tunnel on either side which will cost more than any darn bridge.

Quote:

Originally Posted by newfangled

For me the main thing recommending a 107 route is that it could easily be a 105/107 route. And provding LRT to the North Edge is a good thing, because honestly, I don't know why people would buy condos "starting at $330k" at that location without LRT. If the Quarter takes off, I could see the North Edge floundering badly.

Yup

newfangled · #24 Posted **Apr 16, 2008, 11:57 PM**

^ actually I'm going to change my story a bit.

The best thing about the 105/107 route is that it may actually be doable.

Even with the city's North Edge plans there is currently nothing along 105ave (maybe a few offices in behind GMAC, but they won't complain). So run down 105ave, dodge the cemetery somehow (either by taking 116th or using the ROW at 121) and then run at grade down 107ave (which would see a lot less opposition than any other surface routes).

So it's the path of least resistance, which is a bit of a blessing/curse.

But the reason that it's not a bad route is because of what it could do for the northedge - and that would extend from 103/104ave out to maybe 107ave. If you put an LRT station at Oliver Square, then before too long Oliver Square would be far too valuable to remain as is.

So yeah - not sure if it's the best route, but that's why I think it's worth considering.

Xelebes · #25 Posted **Apr 17, 2008, 12:41 AM**

It's worth as a stand-alone line maybe, but not to get to WEM to downtown or university. I'd be happy if it ended at Mayfield or headed to Winterburn.

MonctonGoldenFlames · #26 Posted **Apr 17, 2008, 1:14 AM**

A spur off another line will eventually lead to headway issues. Best to keep it a seperate line.

IKAN104 · #27 Posted **Apr 17, 2008, 1:32 AM**

I would like to see LRT along 107th Ave at some point but it should not be the main route to West Ed. That just doesn't make any sense.

If this route is chosen then it will be for a political lack of balls and nothing else. Yes it's the path of least resistance but are we building this thing for the good of the whole city? If yes, then we need to build the route that makes the most sense regardless of how rich the nimbys are.

newfangled · #28 Posted **Apr 17, 2008, 1:54 AM**

^ Like I said, I think the main point in favour of 107ave is that it might be doable.

If we can get to WEM some other way then let's do it.

But if a few years go by and we're still fighting with Laurier/Glenora/Crestwood then 107ave isn't a bad backup plan.

(hopefully VFTC shows that won't happen, though)

feepa · #29 Posted **Apr 17, 2008, 2:08 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xelebes

It's worth as a stand-alone line maybe, but not to get to WEM to downtown or university. I'd be happy if it ended at Mayfield or headed to Winterburn.

and perhaps in the long run,out maybe to what is now known as parkland county and spruce grove/stony plain, or just stoner grove...

rapid_business · #30 Posted **Apr 17, 2008, 4:23 AM**

Everything that has been said considered, I think 87th is best for being the most direct. I like 105/107th, but I'd see it as an addition in years to come, tying into the 87th route.

basilbrush · #31 Posted **Apr 17, 2008, 6:12 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by newfangled

So run down 105ave, dodge the cemetery somehow (either by taking 116th or using the ROW at 121) and then run at grade down 107ave (which would see a lot less opposition than any other surface routes).

Dodging the cemetery to get from 105th ave to 107th ave is a pretty big task. Both 116th and 121st steet have become increasingly densified with new residential development. Significant property acquisition would be necessary whether you transition the line over to 107th ave before 116th street or beyond it. The other option i guess would be to fly-over or tunnel under the cemetery.

In addition to that, I can help but notice 107th ave is not really that wide between 116th and 127th street. So you would most likely be looking at more property acquisition or face reducing 107th ave to a two lane road for this section.

...Once you get to Groat Road though, it's wide open.

newfangled · #32 Posted **Apr 17, 2008, 2:57 PM**

^ Between Oliver Square, Crosstown, and the non-historic sections of the Brewery I'm sure there's still some way to get to that ROW without hitting condos (if we really wanted to).

And as for property acquisition - the area around the cemetery might be "increasingly densified" but that's nothing compared to Glenora or Oliver. East of 116st is still easily bulldozable (for now, anyway) as are good chunks along 107ave. I still think it's a lot more doable than running LRT along 102ave through Glenora.

107 definitely isn't very wide, though. But the city had planned to make it a major traffic route for WBRT. I don't remember what the plan was east of 124st, but there must be some options? I still think 107ave makes more sense as a transit route than as a major car route.

So again, not necessarily the best route. But we shouldn't entirely discount it.

feepa · #33 Posted **Apr 17, 2008, 5:12 PM**

How would the LRT deal with 124st area on the 107ave route?? Would it tunnel under it all?

I would hate for any changes to that corner - or area - The little ball that is starting to roll in that area would be a bit different if the lrt is pushed through at grade through the 124st/107ave intersection

IKAN104 · #34 Posted **Apr 17, 2008, 6:03 PM**

But even at grade, if there also was a station on that corner, bringing more people (potentially) into the area it might be a very good thing for 124th Street.

newfangled · #35 Posted **Apr 17, 2008, 6:55 PM**

Yeah, I wouldn't want it running down 124st. But one at grade crossing (with a station nearby, so that it doesn't go ripping through like at some of the NELRT crossings) wouldn't be too bad.

And if LRT was run down SPR/102 instead, then a lot of that traffic would have to be redirected to 107ave just like in the WBRT plan. So either way some changes would have to be made to that area.