I understand that SLRT is going to make it to Heritage/CenturyCity by 2009 but after that?
Will the LRT expand on an ongoing basis like CTrain where not neccessarily new line but add on. What about NAIT? It could just be be extended from the Churchill {but I pray to god not underground} or will the stop at SLRT and then eventually study and do a whole new line at once?
I hope the prior.
Will extentions be ongoing or stop with SLRT?

/\ City of Edmonton is currently holding public consultation meetings with the residents affected by the nLRT (North) and wLRT (West). The north LRT will be first developed as a BRT route with some designated and shared right-of-ways. When demand warrants, they will upgrade it to a full LRT standard. The nLRT will exit from Churchill station and rise above-ground west of 101 Street. It will travel to 105 Street and travel north towards connecting the Royal Alex Hospital, Kingsway Mall and Northern Alberta Institute of Technology.

The west line is still being discussed and they have not decided on an exact route.

For more info, click here:

http://www.edmonton.ca/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_2_279_218_0_43/http%3B/CMSServer/COEWeb/roads+and+traffic/plans+and+initiatives/current+planning+studies/North+High+Speed+Transit+Planning+Study.htm

http://www.edmonton.ca/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_2_279_218_0_43/http%3B/CMSServer/COEWeb/roads+and+traffic/plans+and+initiatives/current+planning+studies/West+High+Speed+Transit+Planning+Study.htm

Edmonton has to figure out if it is truly committed to LRT or not.
It seems while Edmonton keeps studying buses Calgary keeps extending CTrain.
You would think they could do it one station at a time.
BTW if the decide LRT will it be completly grade separated or down the middle of the street battling it out with traffic?

You have to keep in mind Edmonton is just building the 'spine' of the entire LRT system. Route extensions will continue from where the spine system ends. (Eg: the sLRT is to continue south along 111 Street south all the way to the City of Edmonton boundary as demand warrants).

But you stand correct, the City must make a sincere committment to expand the LRT. This is happening in regards to finally staking out the west and northwest routes. Is BRT the best as a phased approach to a full LRT, possibly. Some argue that they should built the LRT from the start, while others say it's good to take the phased approach.

SLRT NLRT and WLRT would make a tremendous difference in the functionality of our system...

Here's my new idea regarding the WLRT line. I know I haven't done much researching, but here it goes:

WLRT line to be treated as an extension of the NLRT line. Start from Corona Station, make an s-curve to 102 avenue and surface at Railtown. 102 avenue in Oliver will be permanently reduced to two lanes to accomodate the rails. The line will go straight through Oliver, Glenora, and into Stony Plain Road. Two stations will be placed in the Oliver area (maybe 112 and 118 street) another next to the Royal Alberta Museum, and so on.

Result, higher initial cost. However, it serves high-density areas, provides faster access to both downtown and university, plus it increases efficiency by having only two lines instead of three. I am not sure about traffic issues though.

^^^
That is a good idea, but the nimbys will definitley stop anything in the general vicinity of the museum.

^WLT will be either 87ave from the university or 107ave ave IMO

I really hope they opt for 107, despite the expense. They'll catch way more riders than 87 ave.

^hard to say...that mall on 156st/87ave is going to be a TOD in the future and so is the area SE of WEM....but 107 would work well as well.

The 87th Ave route would be the most direct and shortest route that taps into the city's largest employment areas, downtown and the U of A, on one line from the westend.

I lived in Edmonton a few years ago , actually in rail town in the 2nd tower and it was only a 4 minuite walk to Carona Station ,so I think they could skip a station in Rail town . The most important thing they should consider is an Express LRT train that goes to WEM at the end of the line once you reach the farthest Northern Station . To tie in the Big mall would be ausome and open up Job oppertunities for people who dont own cars all over the city. WEM is a major jump off point for Transit and an Express train there would cut travel time by like 75 % .

I don't support express lines in smaller cities. The ridership levels don't justify it.
I like the idea of going down Jasper.
It is well proven that serving neighbourhood in the city right along major main roads always results in higher ridership levels than point to point travel like SkyTrain as opposed to eg TTC or Metro.
By having Jasper, Edmonton has the opportunity. It creates enviornments where everything radiates off the main drags. That can not be accomplished with point to point systems.

I don't support express lines in smaller cities. The ridership levels don't justify it.
I like the idea of going down Jasper.
It is well proven that serving neighbourhood in the city right along major main roads always results in higher ridership levels than point to point travel like SkyTrain as opposed to eg TTC or Metro.
By having Jasper, Edmonton has the opportunity. It creates enviornments where everything radiates off the main drags. That can not be accomplished with point to point systems.

I think going through Jasper is the best way to go, but 102nd Ave is better, since it will minimize traffic disturbance along Jasper Avenue in the Oliver neighbourhood. Yes, I think it will attract a lot of riders, plus it is another opportunity for further development in Oliver. Ideally, Oliver should ultimately house 60,000 people.

Have two stations in Oliver, one in Royal Alberta, one in Jasper Place, one in Meadowlark, and finally in WEM. All these stations have the potential to make a significant contribution to the city.

The north line would come first would it not?
What about a line to MillPonds?

The north line would come first would it not?
What about a line to MillPonds?
The North line will be developed first and then the West line.

The line to Millwoods will be quite a ways off.

For a line to WEM, is there still a chance that nimbyism would render the 87 Ave line dead before it even gets started? Remember this would require the demoing of houses in a high-end neighbourhood by the river valley.

So, IMO, I'd say that's probably just as unlikely as an LRT line in the vicinity of the Royal Alberta Museum and Glenora.

107 Ave will be the most likely way for LRT to WEM to go. After all, there's greater ridership potential because of greater catchment despite that line being longer.

So they opted for 87 ave for the west LRT, with a bridge to the UofA Health Sciences Station. This will cost 1billion dollars and take 20-30 years to build. Personally I think they should have went witth 107 ave, went down 156th street through Jasper Place then onto the mall. This would have opened up old areas of the city to renewal.

does anyone have a map of the current expansion and the proposed one on an actual map of edmonton? any would be much appreciated!

It looks, from the map I have of Edmonton, that it will be more expensive to build LRT in Edmonton as opposed to Calgary because Calgary has many more roads with wide mediums. Also Calgary is sot of shaped like a tree as opposed to Edmonton which seems to have moved in all directions from downtown meaning it is harder to serve.

So they opted for 87 ave for the west LRT, with a bridge to the UofA Health Sciences Station. This will cost 1billion dollars and take 20-30 years to build. Personally I think they should have went witth 107 ave, went down 156th street through Jasper Place then onto the mall. This would have opened up old areas of the city to renewal.

Provided the funding is out there in the near future, it won't take nearly as long to build the 87 Ave alignment. The figure of 20-30 years is really shortsightedness on the part of the planners and the city government.

I do, however wish they'd had opted for the 107 Ave plan instead, as I thought they were going to do.

On a selfish side, ill still be stuck using the bus with the lrt going across 87ave.

saw some more plans last night for the north-portal on 105ave...and was told the city wants the LRT to NAIT by 2010.

About the SLRT.
First of all, where is the cross street for the NeilCrawford Centre?
Aftyer the Health Sciences Centre there a two stations between that and Southgate.
What the cross streets be for those of us who who are going strickly from a map.

Second, I went to the SLRT website and went to the implementation timetable.
I know HealthSciences opens Jan/06 but what is the schedule for EACH station after that. It says it will be finished by 2010 but seeing all the tunnelling is done and the funds are now there that seems like a hell of a long time.
Have they pushed up the dates for any { or each if you have it} of the stations.
The SLRT website seems pretty shitty.

Third, I know there is an "unofficial" Edmonton transit site. I've been on it before but damned if I can't remember the name.

Thanks for the help.

it will cross at belgravia rd and 114st...well just west of 114st.

Is the wLRT plan official now?

Is the wLRT plan official now?
Yes and no. All that is official at this time is City administration have announced their support for the 87 Avenue alignment. The next step is to continue with more detailed consultations and technical studies. Council will then endorse an alignment and then determine where the funds will come to pay for it.

About the SLRT.
First of all, where is the cross street for the NeilCrawford Centre?
Aftyer the Health Sciences Centre there a two stations between that and Southgate.
What the cross streets be for those of us who who are going strickly from a map.

Second, I went to the SLRT website and went to the implementation timetable.
I know HealthSciences opens Jan/06 but what is the schedule for EACH station after that. It says it will be finished by 2010 but seeing all the tunnelling is done and the funds are now there that seems like a hell of a long time.
Have they pushed up the dates for any { or each if you have it} of the stations.
The SLRT website seems pretty shitty.

Third, I know there is an "unofficial" Edmonton transit site. I've been on it before but damned if I can't remember the name.

Thanks for the help.
2010 is not that far off. 2005 is basically done and the next phase is to South Campus. This requires demolishing a few houses along 114 Street, constructing the track grade, a cut and fill tunnel at Belgravia and two stations (2006/07). The next Phase is from South Campus all the way to Century Park. This is more complex as it involves the construction of another tunnel under 61 Ave, a bridge over Whitemud Freeway, building up the track grade, 2 stations (park n' rides w/ a parkade structure @ Century Pk) along with multiple roadway improvements (2007-09). In the world of construction, that's not a long time.

Any hope for a high-speed link all the way down from Century Park to Calgary, funded by the billions in surpluss?

Any hope for a high-speed link all the way down from Century Park to Calgary, funded by the billions in surpluss?
Umm, possssibly. However, there has been nothing more than talk.

The proposed HS Rail would provide direct service from Edmonton's downtown and int'l airport to Calgary's downtown and int'l airport.

I think most of those things are a waste of money.
It wouldn't be that much faster than driving or even a Greyhound.
They can be good for one person but for 2 or more they become too expensive.
Better to use the money on LRT where tens of thousands will use everyday.

I agree, the provincial governement should be putting alot of this surplus towards public transit as a investment for the future. That would be the best thing they could do

I think most of those things are a waste of money.
It wouldn't be that much faster than driving or even a Greyhound.
They can be good for one person but for 2 or more they become too expensive.
Better to use the money on LRT where tens of thousands will use everyday.

It could be counter-balanced by a closure of the municiple airport, and downgrading of leduc international [IE pare down the international airport's huge development budget].

Sorry, still don't get it.
Does anyone have a map of Edmonton with the SLRT stations on it. I'm confused about what happens between HealthScience Centre and Southlands. BTW, will there be a station between Southlands and Heritage. I would REALLY like to know.

Also 2010 is pretty slow considering Translink is building RAV by 2010 with 26km of which 9 are underground and they have to go across FalseCreek and the Fraser.

I think most of those things are a waste of money.
It wouldn't be that much faster than driving or even a Greyhound.
They can be good for one person but for 2 or more they become too expensive.
Better to use the money on LRT where tens of thousands will use everyday.
And I believe many people agree with that.

If highspeed rail is difficult to incorporate between much larger populations centers, how can it work between Edmonton and Calgary where the total population is less than 3 million? We are still small potatoes population-wise compared to the densely populated eastern Canada and US.

It could be counter-balanced by a closure of the municiple airport, and downgrading of leduc international [IE pare down the international airport's huge development budget].
I don't know what you're saying here?

Sorry, still don't get it.
Does anyone have a map of Edmonton with the SLRT stations on it. I'm confused about what happens between HealthScience Centre and Southlands. BTW, will there be a station between Southlands and Heritage. I would REALLY like to know.
Here is the sLRT map.

http://x10.putfile.com/10/29212293331.jpg

Thanks for the map, that helps. I see that SouthCampus station is a bit off 113th, how far from the road will it be.

I see that the line is going thru some fairly built up areas, which is good. That said, this is going to be a true LRT is it not?. It won't have any traffic lights or cross streets or intermingle with traffic will it? I hope not.

the south campus station will be near foote field....

Thanks for the map, that helps. I see that SouthCampus station is a bit off 113th, how far from the road will it be.

I see that the line is going thru some fairly built up areas, which is good. That said, this is going to be a true LRT is it not?. It won't have any traffic lights or cross streets or intermingle with traffic will it? I hope not.
/\ It will be a true LRT and there will be grade-level crossings at some intersections. Basically, it will be no different than the existing NE line or the LRT lines in Calgary.

/\ It will be a true LRT and there will be grade-level crossings at some intersections. Basically, it will be no different than the existing NE line or the LRT lines in Calgary.

BIG difference between the NE line and the NW line. Virtually all of the NW line goes under overpasses so does not have lights. The same can be said for the South line for the most part. Edmonton should take the lessons learned in Calgary, and build slowly but properly, and not cause more traffic headache. Remember the darn train crossing on Whitemud will the early 90's?

"Edmonton should take the lessons learned in Calgary, and build slowly but properly, and not cause more traffic headache"

or perhaps calgary should take a lesson from edmonton and put the downtown line U/G....zing

"Edmonton should take the lessons learned in Calgary, and build slowly but properly, and not cause more traffic headache"

or perhaps calgary should taken a lesson from edmonton and put the downtown line U/G....zing
Hahahaha.....

The sLRT will go under or over the major roadways/intersections and grade-level at minor crossings.

Btw, Calgary still has many grade-level crossings.

I hope that means no stops/lights.
Foote field?.....not on my Edmonton map.

^UofA's stage 1 of their south campus....just off 114st at about 75ave.

Hahahaha.....

The sLRT will go under or over the major roadways/intersections and grade-level at minor crossings.

Btw, Calgary still has many grade-level crossings.

Yes - Calgary NE line it horrible for that, but like I said, NW line is excellent. Keep in mind that any of Calgary's three main lines carry way more than Edmonton's entire system. Calgary has about 4.5 times more passengers on its system!!!

Calgary's LRT:
Average number of boarding passengers per day: (2004) 187,855
- South - 75,800
- Northwest - 65,300
- Northeast - 52,300
- Downtown (free fare zone) - 22,800
42.1 km of track and 25 major stations + downtown stations
114 vehicles
Max speed 80km/hr

Edmonton's LRT:
Average number of boarding passengers per day: 42,000
12.3 km of track and 10 stations
37 vehicles
Max speed 70km/hr

references:
http://www.calgarytransit.com/html/technical_information.html
http://www.edmonton.ca/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_2_280_218_0_43/http%3B/CMSServer/COEWeb/getting+around/lrt/

WALLI,
I disagree with what you said earlier about Calgary should be building slower and properly.
Calgary has been building properly, it is EDMONTON that has been growing slowly.
One would never know Edmonton had LRT 6 years before Calgary.

WALLI,
I disagree with what you said earlier about Calgary should be building slower and properly.
Calgary has been building properly, it is EDMONTON that has been growing slowly.
One would never know Edmonton had LRT 6 years before Calgary.

Hmmm ... good point. Edmonton did start the LRT in 1978. Wow! only up to 42000 users per day!

I'm wondering if it would have been better to have a more extensive network, trading the underground portions for street level [to balance the costs]? Clearly, there would have been other considerations, and people who actually use it now will call foul ... but there are hundreds of thousands who live no where near the single small line!

Hmmm ... good point. Edmonton did start the LRT in 1978. Wow! only up to 42000 users per day!

I'm wondering if it would have been better to have a more extensive network, trading the underground portions for street level [to balance the costs]? Clearly, there would have been other considerations, and people who actually use it now will call foul ... but there are hundreds of thousands who live no where near the single small line!

why do you have to bash edmonton's lrt just because its not as successful as calgary's? they both serve the same purpose and just because one's system has more riders than another doesn't mean they have the right to say someone's else's sucks.

^ true.
Its just hard not to compare Ed to Cal because they compare everthing else.

^ true.
Its just hard not to compare Ed to Cal because they compare everthing else.

a little healthy comparison is fine.. but that guy has just been bashing everything about edmonton from how it lacks in tall buildings, how calgary has more big companies based there, and now how public transportation usage is so much higher in calgary. I just don't see reason why there is so much rivalry between the two cities. They are BOTH IN THE SAME PROVINCE, working together is always better, why all the bitterness? In fact, in my own opinion i find Calgary's skyline to be boring, I appreciate Edmonton's diversity much more. But don't get me wrong, i love calgary too.

i wish all Canadian cities could be more supportive of other cities and not always try to say one is better than the other. We should be lucky to have such great cities in a country with such a small population (on a world scale).

Hmmm ... good point. Edmonton did start the LRT in 1978. Wow! only up to 42000 users per day!

I'm wondering if it would have been better to have a more extensive network, trading the underground portions for street level [to balance the costs]? Clearly, there would have been other considerations, and people who actually use it now will call foul ... but there are hundreds of thousands who live no where near the single small line!
/\ More than likely that would have been better for our system. On the flip side, the Province paid for a much larger portion of Edmonton's u/g LRT through generous infrastructure grants. This was back in the day when the province covered a larger portion of costs for infrastructure expansions. Those programs no longer exist today, and this is why municipalities are struggling to find the cash to expand and maintain infrastructure. So in the end, Edmonton truly benefitted. Doing this in Calgary, which is planned, will be extremely expensive and more of a cost burden on the municipality.

Also, many former council members didnt think the LRT was important to expand. They knew it was expensive to dig out from University station and 'borrowing' money, like other cities did for large infrastructure projects, was not even considered. Shortsightedness if you ask me.

Thankfully our new council has realized the benefits and need for a comprehensive transit system. That is why consultations have been initiated for the NW and W lines.

In regards to passenger numbers, if you do an assessment on passengers/km, Edmonton actually fairs quite well.

EDM 42,000 ppd / 12.3km = 3414.6 passengers/km
CGY 187,855 ppd / 42.1km = 4462.1 passengers/km

Snoopy
I agree but it is inevitable in many ways just as long as people try to be objective.
You think Cal/Edm is bad, try Tor/Mon which has been going on all century.
Remember your economy is more diversified, you have a great cultural/arts scene, and
U.of A. is always considered, by far, Alberta's premier university and one of Canada's. In the ROC it ussually seen as an obvious with U.Calgary as an also-ran. Edmonton also seems more open minded both socially and intellectually due to being the capitol and U.of A..
Maybe Edmonton would seem a little less of , as the Toronto Star said, "the city that gets no respect" if stopped complaining about Calgary and started proclaiming Edmonton.

That's some interesting numbers to look at. I wonder how Vancouver, Ottawa, Toronto and Montreal fare in the passengers per km equation.

^^^
Damn good question.
Apta is a great resource for the Americans but cuta/actu is absolutly useless.
Doesn't even give city ridership levels.
Does anyone know of a good Canadian site?

a little healthy comparison is fine.. but that guy has just been bashing everything about edmonton

Okay - perhaps I'm too much of a hockey guy and my competetive nature has come out here also. For the record, I went to the UofA some years back, and would agree that it is Alberta's premier university. For those in Eastern Canada, it happens to be Canada's second largest university after the University of Toronto.

Back when I went to the UofA, Edmonton did it's fair share of Calgary bashing and rubbing things in also. Every time I'd drive in to Edmonton, I'd see that city of champions sign (always rubbed me to wrong way - except once where there was an under construction sign right after it).

My last comment, about trading underground for a more extensive network did not have any sense of bashing in it - it was a thought in all seriousness. Though I was in Edmonton five years, I didn't even know there was a train (honest). I only realized in my last year, when they started digging the University station!

My penultimate post had some facts and figures. I believe that was value added for the discussion at hand. If Edmonton numbers were smaller, that's just how it is. No one needs to get defensive. The fact that London's underground is 400 km doesn't bug me in Calgary.

why do you have to bash edmonton's lrt just because its not as successful as calgary's? they both serve the same purpose and just because one's system has more riders than another doesn't mean they have the right to say someone's else's sucks.

Simple..that's typical attitude - Calgary style!

Forgive me , I'm not in a very good mood. period. What happens when a woman who decidces to tell you to you to fuck off at the very last minute!?

I'm wondering if it would have been better to have a more extensive network, trading the underground portions for street level [to balance the costs]? Clearly, there would have been other considerations, and people who actually use it now will call foul ... but there are hundreds of thousands who live no where near the single small line!

Well, I tend to agree with Walli (kinda weird to be responding with someone with the same name as I do but have a different spelling). I am a huge proponent of having a much more extensive rail transit system via lowering its costs through efficient planning and that unnecessary tunneling is really stupid because it results in a less extensive line that it would if it wasn't tunneled (hence why I am so critical of Vancouver's RAV Line since if the system was at grade or elevated, the excess funds can be used to expand more rail transit elsewhere in the GVRD). Edmonton's main mistake was tunneling instead of having a segregated at-grade system and for the amount of money spend on it, it could easily have a much more successful extensive system similar to Calgary. Note that it is only now that they are expanding the Edmonton LRT when it could have been much larger than it is right now if they simply didn't tunnel.

How much did the tunneling cost in 2005 dollars? Was it just the tunneling and not lack of political will that restricted LRT expansion?

How much did the tunneling cost in 2005 dollars? Was it just the tunneling and not lack of political will that restricted LRT expansion?

It's really both. The tunneling downtown in the 1970s was very, very expensive. And then they had to tunnel underneath the U of A in the early 1990s. And then there's political reasons as well. CN Rail wasn't terribly cooperative with the city, and that put the city off of trying to put an LRT route on the High level bridge.

The provincial funding for the LRT really dried like hell back in the early 1990s as well, and then we had what was probably the weirdest city council government Edmonton's had in its entire history. The city was also trying to pay off its debt load as well, so it wasn't exactly willing to put on more debt to fund any further LRT expansion. While the debt management was a noble thing, the mayor (Jan Reimer) and the city council was just a bunch of squabblers that was better off in an amateur debate-a-thon than in a real civic council.

Are there any pics of the SLRT??

How much did the tunneling cost in 2005 dollars? Was it just the tunneling and not lack of political will that restricted LRT expansion?
Cost to built grade-level LRT is approx. $25-35,000/meter
Tunnelling is approx. $90-100,000/meter

This does not include engineering, stations, and other contingencies.

It was a combination of both, the lack of political will to expand the system and scared at the costs of bringing the tracks back to the surface.

But if the tunneling is only a portion of the LRT, it still wouldn't add up to triple the length of the line (similar to Calgary's length).

But if the tunneling is only a portion of the LRT, it still wouldn't add up to triple the length of the line (similar to Calgary's length).
No, the entire south line is 7.5km(?), which would then up to approx. 18.8km. for the total LRT line.

In the end, its not the distance of track, a better assessment of an efficient line is passengers per kilometer.

No, the entire south line is 7.5km(?), which would then up to approx. 18.8km. for the total LRT line.

In the end, its not the distance of track, a better assessment of an efficient line is passengers per kilometer.

Would passengers per city population not be a good assessment of a city's networks?

Would passengers per city population not be a good assessment of a city's networks?
No, b/c not everyone are of age or ever need to take transit (eg. people who work from home or simply don't need transit). A better indicator would be through a survey to determine how many could take transit.

No, b/c not everyone are of age or ever need to take transit (eg. people who work from home or simply don't need transit). A better indicator would be through a survey to determine how many could take transit.

Calgary & Edmonton are pretty darn close as cities go. I'm certain the 40,000 to 180,000 ratio is more skewed than it should be. The second largest university in Canada wasn't even being serviced by its host city's LRT network till recent! I was a student at UofA and didn't even know there was a train in the city! I don't need a survey to tell me bigger network could have served the city better.

If you consider 1992 recent...then you might be right...
You can boost your city without constantly criticizing ours, Walli.

Calgary & Edmonton are pretty darn close as cities go. I'm certain the 40,000 to 180,000 ratio is more skewed than it should be. The second largest university in Canada wasn't even being serviced by its host city's LRT network till recent! I was a student at UofA and didn't even know there was a train in the city! I don't need a survey to tell me bigger network could have served the city better.
/\ The U of A was serviced by the LRT in 1992. A second station, Health Sciences opens Jan 1/06.

The advantage Calgary has besides a more comprehensive LRT system is that a higher proportion of jobs are located in the downtown. As a result, more people will use the LRT as it is accessible and efficient to the majority of workers/commuters.

/\ The U of A was serviced by the LRT in 1992.

Yes - I know that. I was at the U during the period (thought I stated that already). My point remains. A city containing the second largest university in the country has a train network that didn't reach it for 14 years after the network first opened!!!

The advantage Calgary has besides a more comprehensive LRT system is that a higher proportion of jobs are located in the downtown.

Absolutely! I agree. Point is, even with a smaller univeristy, Calgary didn't take 14 years to service it. Back to my point about above ground - just doing that would have allowed Edmonton to reach the UofA in 1978 or 1980, instead of 1992 (increasing ridership by 50% just with that, as each user takes a trip to and from).

/\ The U of A was serviced by the LRT in 1992. A second station, Health Sciences opens Jan 1/06.

Yes, I'm fully aware of Health Sciences and SLRT, and have been for quite some time.
The High Level was closed yesterday and the 9 took a detour right past the new station. It's looking great! :D

Yes - I know that. I was at the U during the period (thought I stated that already). My point remains. A city containing the second largest university in the country has a train network that didn't reach it for 14 years after the network first opened!!!



Absolutely! I agree. Point is, even with a smaller univeristy, Calgary didn't take 14 years to service it. Back to my point about above ground - just doing that would have allowed Edmonton to reach the UofA in 1978 or 1980, instead of 1992 (increasing ridership by 50% just with that, as each user takes a trip to and from).
Like mentioned before, building the bridge and crossing the river was a huge cost no council wanted to take on. The economic bust that hit in the early 80's which dried up funds didn't help and basically stopped LRT expansion altogether. When the economy started heating up around the late 80's/early 90's, money to expand the system from Corona to the U of A was available.

Yes, I'm fully aware of Health Sciences and SLRT, and have been for quite some time.
The High Level was closed yesterday and the 9 took a detour right past the new station. It's looking great! :D
My comments weren't directed at you....

I fEdmonton wanted to build a tunnel under downtown then thats OK.
The thing that I could never fathom is when they got over the river to U.ofA. why did they tunnel there as well???
Why didn't they just go atgrade? That would have saved them a ton and they wouldn't have to completed the tunnel to HealthSciences.
Unless there some geological reason I'm not aware of.

^ Ah the mysteries of life! Why do people tunnel their trains when its not necessary? Kinda reminds me of RAV. Maybe Edmonton has their own creme de la creme over the river to U of A... :lol:

I fEdmonton wanted to build a tunnel under downtown then thats OK.
The thing that I could never fathom is when they got over the river to U.ofA. why did they tunnel there as well???
Why didn't they just go atgrade? That would have saved them a ton and they wouldn't have to completed the tunnel to HealthSciences.
Unless there some geological reason I'm not aware of.
The LRT would have to have surfaced on the north side of the river in order to make it across. This would have required a major bridge structure similar to the High Level Bridge. So, the engineers decided to keep the LRT underground and build a smaller bridge and continue u/g to the U of A.

Didn't know that, thanks for the info.

My comments weren't directed at you....
Then don't use the up arrow! :)

Then don't use the up arrow! :)
/\ Ok....;)

^yah