Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789
Results 801 to 894 of 894

Thread: Metro Line | NAIT to St Albert | Conceptual Discussion

  1. #801
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    They should have looked to Vancouver as a guide to building LRT

  2. #802

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    They should have looked to Vancouver as a guide to building LRT
    Yup ! They should also look to Vancouver in how to build a bridge.

  3. #803
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,087

    Default

    Where would you get the funding to elevate the track? What's your answer to the ridership issues that come with limited stops? How would you handle NIMBYISM from homeowners who understandingly don't want a monolithic concrete structure running through their communities?

  4. #804

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stevey_G View Post
    Where would you get the funding to elevate the track? What's your answer to the ridership issues that come with limited stops? How would you handle NIMBYISM from homeowners who understandingly don't want a monolithic concrete structure running through their communities?
    it seems to work in vancouver, it's called being in a big city. also, a completely separated track means trains can run faster, with more frequency. as it stands, the metro line and all the lrt the city is building is not designed for the future.

  5. #805
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,087

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thatguy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevey_G View Post
    Where would you get the funding to elevate the track? What's your answer to the ridership issues that come with limited stops? How would you handle NIMBYISM from homeowners who understandingly don't want a monolithic concrete structure running through their communities?
    it seems to work in vancouver, it's called being in a big city. also, a completely separated track means trains can run faster, with more frequency. as it stands, the metro line and all the lrt the city is building is not designed for the future.
    Actually floor grade LRT is widely recognized as the best and most accessible form of light rail. You cite the sky train as your example; however many would counter with the transit systems utilized in Baltimore, Boston, Portland, San Diego, and Toronto. They're more accessible, have the ability to integrate more stops along their route, and are becoming the standardized practice of developing mass transit - something that will drive down the costs of design of engineering going forward. Building a giant monolith that only serves a few locations makes it less likely to be used by people with skyrocketing costs and further marginalized communities whom are indeed benefiting from the floor grade system.
    There was no need to change that plaque. We are the City of Champions.

  6. #806

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stevey_G View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by thatguy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevey_G View Post
    Where would you get the funding to elevate the track? What's your answer to the ridership issues that come with limited stops? How would you handle NIMBYISM from homeowners who understandingly don't want a monolithic concrete structure running through their communities?
    it seems to work in vancouver, it's called being in a big city. also, a completely separated track means trains can run faster, with more frequency. as it stands, the metro line and all the lrt the city is building is not designed for the future.
    Actually floor grade LRT is widely recognized as the best and most accessible form of light rail. You cite the sky train as your example; however many would counter with the transit systems utilized in Baltimore, Boston, Portland, San Diego, and Toronto. They're more accessible, have the ability to integrate more stops along their route, and are becoming the standardized practice of developing mass transit - something that will drive down the costs of design of engineering going forward. Building a giant monolith that only serves a few locations makes it less likely to be used by people with skyrocketing costs and further marginalized communities whom are indeed benefiting from the floor grade system.
    I can think of many access points that are already elevated that could be incorporated. Eg. UofA, hospitals , malls etc. If not better , being a cold city . As for funding I can think of a few ways but would stay away from a p3 model as it can impede expansion later ..similar to Toronto where they cant expand highways ,...
    As for the NIMBY'S...it's about quality and if you can offer something people like , that they can be proud of , truly world class . They be less resistant ....it's when you build a piece of junk people get upset . The system now upsets everyone , the people using it ( slow and inefficient) , motorists etc.

  7. #807

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stevey_G View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by thatguy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevey_G View Post
    Where would you get the funding to elevate the track? What's your answer to the ridership issues that come with limited stops? How would you handle NIMBYISM from homeowners who understandingly don't want a monolithic concrete structure running through their communities?
    it seems to work in vancouver, it's called being in a big city. also, a completely separated track means trains can run faster, with more frequency. as it stands, the metro line and all the lrt the city is building is not designed for the future.
    Actually floor grade LRT is widely recognized as the best and most accessible form of light rail. You cite the sky train as your example; however many would counter with the transit systems utilized in Baltimore, Boston, Portland, San Diego, and Toronto. They're more accessible, have the ability to integrate more stops along their route, and are becoming the standardized practice of developing mass transit - something that will drive down the costs of design of engineering going forward. Building a giant monolith that only serves a few locations makes it less likely to be used by people with skyrocketing costs and further marginalized communities whom are indeed benefiting from the floor grade system.
    that is esoteric bs. the point of mass transit is to move large volumes of people quickly. why does time no longer seem to be a factor? funny how in surrey they are planing low floor tram but residents are demanding skytrain. last time i was there i noticed no "marginalization". and as for accessibility, umm, that's what escalators and stairs and elevators are for. and skytrain is far more successful than portland, and sandiego.

    i don't get why a slow train is seen as urban. i need to get to work or an event asap. i don't need to do the milk run. and unless it's convenient, it won't entice people to get out of their vehicles. the henday and the suburban office parks are very enticing in that regard.

    look, i want a vibrant downtown, but a tram and a slow lrt through intersections is not the way to do that. i've travelled a lot and the big cities i have been know the importance of that.

    paris wouldn't function without the metro. the slower trams connect to metro which connect to city centre. the trams don't crawl to city centre.

    i hate that urban hipsters in edmonton don't seem to understand that, until after billions are spent.

    ask yourself this: if the city pushes north of 2 million population, will the tram/ lrt be enough? automated trains on a guideway or underground can reach headway every 90 seconds or less. the at floor lrt, every 5 minutes. try and get more frequency and traffic will stand to a halt. and yes, people still drive. there's nothing wrong with that. not everyone can walk or cycle or sip lattes at the organic grocer all day.

    as for cost, yvr seems to have built a much better system for less cost per kilometre even when factoring in inflation. we here in edmonton are being screwed bigtime.
    Last edited by thatguy; 25-06-2017 at 09:57 PM.

  8. #808

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thatguy View Post
    i don't get why a slow train is seen as urban. i need to get to work or an event asap.
    Absolutely.

    Plus, nobody wants to spend MORE time taking public transit than they need to.

  9. #809

    Default

    What that guy said...

    as for cost, yvr seems to have built a much better system for less cost per kilometre even when factoring in inflation. we here in edmonton are being screwed bigtime.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  10. #810
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,087

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thatguy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevey_G View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by thatguy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevey_G View Post
    Where would you get the funding to elevate the track? What's your answer to the ridership issues that come with limited stops? How would you handle NIMBYISM from homeowners who understandingly don't want a monolithic concrete structure running through their communities?
    it seems to work in vancouver, it's called being in a big city. also, a completely separated track means trains can run faster, with more frequency. as it stands, the metro line and all the lrt the city is building is not designed for the future.
    Actually floor grade LRT is widely recognized as the best and most accessible form of light rail. You cite the sky train as your example; however many would counter with the transit systems utilized in Baltimore, Boston, Portland, San Diego, and Toronto. They're more accessible, have the ability to integrate more stops along their route, and are becoming the standardized practice of developing mass transit - something that will drive down the costs of design of engineering going forward. Building a giant monolith that only serves a few locations makes it less likely to be used by people with skyrocketing costs and further marginalized communities whom are indeed benefiting from the floor grade system.
    that is esoteric bs. the point of mass transit is to move large volumes of people quickly. why does time no longer seem to be a factor? funny how in surrey they are planing low floor tram but residents are demanding skytrain. last time i was there i noticed no "marginalization". and as for accessibility, umm, that's what escalators and stairs and elevators are for. and skytrain is far more successful than portland, and sandiego.

    i don't get why a slow train is seen as urban. i need to get to work or an event asap. i don't need to do the milk run. and unless it's convenient, it won't entice people to get out of their vehicles. the henday and the suburban office parks are very enticing in that regard.

    look, i want a vibrant downtown, but a tram and a slow lrt through intersections is not the way to do that. i've travelled a lot and the big cities i have been know the importance of that.

    paris wouldn't function without the metro. the slower trams connect to metro which connect to city centre. the trams don't crawl to city centre.

    i hate that urban hipsters in edmonton don't seem to understand that, until after billions are spent.

    ask yourself this: if the city pushes north of 2 million population, will the tram/ lrt be enough? automated trains on a guideway or underground can reach headway every 90 seconds of less. the at floor lrt, every 5 minutes. try and get more frequency and traffic will stand to a halt. and yes, people still drive. there's nothing wrong with that. not everyone can walk or cycle or sip lattes at the organic grocer all day.

    as for cost, yvr seems to have built a much better system for less cost per kilometre even when factoring in inflation. we here in edmonton are being screwed bigtime.
    Urban Hipsters lmao. Dude I'm from a farm.

    Anyways; I'll humour you. What would you do? I want to know your answers for building a "sky train in Edmonton" with our costs to build and I'd like to know how you would finance it. I'm not being arrogant or sarcastic - I'm genuinely curious to hear your ideas.
    There was no need to change that plaque. We are the City of Champions.

  11. #811
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,087

    Default

    I would also be very much curious to hear about your experiences with low floor trams. From the places I've been to that utilize them they are quick to accelerate and decelerate, move at a decent pace, and are typically accessible for people with handicaps it seemed. Places it has been extremely well utilized include Budapest, Rome, Geneva, Minneapolis,etc, etc.

    What makes it so "urban", is that it integrated a string of communities along the line taking advantage of LRV's ability to integrate stops whilst getting back to speed with expediency. I understand you guys don't think this is a good system but ultimately "good" is in the design". We're off the beaten path here as Metro Line isn't even floor grade. But you want a system that encourages walkability and community integration. West LRT (as a better example) will do just that.

    Next time you goto Portland I encourage you to try their transit system. I think you'll see it's not exactly the snail's pace you make it out to be. And have you people arguing on the point of Vancouver's system ever wondered why their engineers and designers making the move to Low Floor?
    There was no need to change that plaque. We are the City of Champions.

  12. #812

    Default

    "what would you do?"

    i don't mind low floor lrt and street level stops. but i would ensure the trains would go over or under intersections where the roadway is considered a major artery. so if the intersection sees a minimum of 'x' of vehicles through it each day, the default is to design an over or underpass. if that means an above or below ground station, so be it. keep the design simple, nothing fancy. and if it means the extra cost doesn't mean a full build out right away, then so be it. i'd rather have the trains built properly to wagner park n ride then built wrongly all the way to mill woods.

    as for costs, edmonton seems to be getting the wool pulled over its eyes. see evergreen line in vancouver
    the cost: $1.4 billion in 2009 dollars. according to the inflation calculator, the 2017 cost is just over 1.5 billion. so, in 2017 dollars, that's just over $137 million per km. in edmonton, the valley line is $1.8 billion for just over 13 km working out to be the same cost per km. but in yvr, they get a train that runs every 90 seconds at peak and doesn't interupt traffic at all. travel time is 15 minutes. who's getting the better deal? (did you know, it will take 12 minutes to get from boonie doon to dt on the valley line!? i'll take my car, thanks!!)

    and the elevated station looks ok to me:
    https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.28570...7i13312!8i6656

    "I would also be very much curious to hear about your experiences with low floor trams. From the places I've been to that utilize them they are quick to accelerate and decelerate, move at a decent pace"

    the issue is not the low floor lrt. those lrv's can travel as fast as skytrain, but they will never reach that speed in edmonton because the trains will be at surface. did you know, the valley line will actually have a maximum speed slower than vehicle traffic in many locations? why? the whole point is to see the train whip by, so as a driver i might be convinced it's a better option!!!

    "and are typically accessible for people with handicaps it seemed."

    escalators, elevators help with that.

    "Places it has been extremely well utilized include Budapest, Rome, Geneva, Minneapolis,etc, etc."

    difference. budapest, rome, geneva all have fast, efficient metros. the trams feed the metros. minneapolis can not be held as a comparator.

    "We're off the beaten path here as Metro Line isn't even floor grade."

    for all intents and purposes, it is. just because it's a few inches higher off the ground than a low floor lrt does make it not. :/

    "But you want a system that encourages walkability and community integration"

    that is the hispter bs i'm talking about. so, skytrain isn't walkable? last time i checked, yvr was one of the most walkable cities in north america. if anyone knows how to do TOD, they do. hmmm, all the millions using the london underground must be so upset that famous system isn't 'walkable' :/

    "And have you people arguing on the point of Vancouver's system ever wondered why their engineers and designers making the move to Low Floor?"

    that i am perplexed about, as well. they have a good system. the only answer i have is that urban hipster planners have taken over their planning.
    Last edited by thatguy; 25-06-2017 at 11:54 PM.

  13. #813
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Vancouver - Edmonton
    Posts
    161

    Default

    Surrey low-floor LRT is very political and very controversial, here's the Skyscraper page on it for some background. Post number 3634 is fairly relevant to the perceived cost of low-floor vs elevated

    "Just to remind people, this project is actually a kilometer shorter than the Evergreen Line...

    Yet is around 500 million dollars more expensive...

    Evergreen Line... fully grade grade separated.

    This project... full ***********.

    Seriously, I cant get over what a boondoggle this is.

    This is a huge waste of money I would far rather see being used on skytrain to Langley or skytrain to UBC."

    - Metro-One

    http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=162194&page=182

  14. #814

    Default

    Just remember that we are constantly told that elevated track costs 3 times more. Not including automated trains.

    Yup, 3 times more. Billion and billions of dollar more!

    Nothing to see here folks, just move along as we build you this fantastical, stupendous, big, really big, neato but slow streetcar to Millwoods 30 years late.

    Don't forget, elevated is 3 times more...

    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  15. #815
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,278

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stevey_G View Post
    Actually floor grade LRT is widely recognized as the best and most accessible form of light rail. You cite the sky train as your example; however many would counter with the transit systems utilized in Baltimore, Boston, Portland, San Diego, and Toronto. They're more accessible, have the ability to integrate more stops along their route, and are becoming the standardized practice of developing mass transit - something that will drive down the costs of design of engineering going forward. Building a giant monolith that only serves a few locations makes it less likely to be used by people with skyrocketing costs and further marginalized communities whom are indeed benefiting from the floor grade system.
    Now I haven't been on Baltimore's system, been on all the others though (and more such as Sacramento, St. Louis, Seattle, San Jose...), and as for ridership the ones that follow the fast subway model have more riders, then the ones that follow the streetcar/tram model.

  16. #816

    Default

    Baltimore, Boston, Portland, San Diego, and Toronto
    Whenever people rave about the best transit systems in the world, those don't seem to make the list...
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  17. #817
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,278

    Default

    Portland does seem to get mentioned quite a bit positively. Boston's Green Line is an old streetcar/tram line (and I'm not exaggerating/underestimating) and put it in a tunnel.

  18. #818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevey_G View Post
    Actually floor grade LRT is widely recognized as the best and most accessible form of light rail. You cite the sky train as your example; however many would counter with the transit systems utilized in Baltimore, Boston, Portland, San Diego, and Toronto. They're more accessible, have the ability to integrate more stops along their route, and are becoming the standardized practice of developing mass transit - something that will drive down the costs of design of engineering going forward. Building a giant monolith that only serves a few locations makes it less likely to be used by people with skyrocketing costs and further marginalized communities whom are indeed benefiting from the floor grade system.
    Now I haven't been on Baltimore's system, been on all the others though (and more such as Sacramento, St. Louis, Seattle, San Jose...), and as for ridership the ones that follow the fast subway model have more riders, then the ones that follow the streetcar/tram model.
    Streetcars seem to be getting a bad rap lately. I am not sure if is just the current fad to disparage them or not. Some like Toronto's have been around for a long, long time so there must be some reasons they keep them. Anyways, I am not sure the choice has to be streetcars or subways - Toronto has both.

    Perhaps fast subways better serve suburban commuters and the streetcar model better serves those traveling more within the city.

  19. #819
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    991

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    Portland does seem to get mentioned quite a bit positively. Boston's Green Line is an old streetcar/tram line (and I'm not exaggerating/underestimating) and put it in a tunnel.
    I think Portlands transit being considered good is a testament to how bad American Public transit sucks. Seriously, it's about on par with Edmontons imo, the only difference being that they have more rail lines, so it's more reliable. Some of those lines have peak frequencies of like 15 minutes.

  20. #820
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,530

    Default

    Council votes to look more closely at transit-friendly bridge over Yellowhead Trail
    http://globalnews.ca/news/3560770/co...llowhead-trail

    The possibility of a bridge over Yellowhead Trail will be included in planning for the next part of the Metro Line LRT extension into north Edmonton.

    City council voted Tuesday to approve the request for design and engineering work for a connection between the Blatchford and Calder neighbourhoods.

    “Instead of doing one thing and then having to go tear something up to do another – which we’ve had to do at times – perhaps, if this works out and its feasible, we could be doing a lot of things in conjunction,” Coun. Dave Loken said. “That would save us not only money, but time.”

    “The bridge is going to be significant and while we’re being engaged over the Yellowhead, why wouldn’t we save money and look at it all at the same time?” Coun. Bev Esslinger asked during debate.

    The bridge would not only go over the Yellowhead, but also the CN rail yard, allowing those who live in the northwest part of the city easy access to downtown. That’s important to Loken, who told council he hears from constituents who would rather drive than make two connections to get downtown.

    “If we want to talk ridership, we need to provide better transit service and connectivity and timely and more speedy transit service – especially to our downtown – if we’re going to raise our ridership in the north.”
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  21. #821
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,679

    Default

    ^ this would be a significant (huge) step towards building north lrt
    The world is full of kings and queens, who blind your eyes then steal your dreams.
    It's heaven and hell!

  22. #822

    Default

    As a resident of St.Albert I think our portion should be sky trained , done right.

  23. #823

    Default

    I don't get the problem that our city has with elevated, although that could change after the Millwood line opens with it's elevated section. Elevated may not be ideal in real dense urban places but it would work just fine on 97st north of 118, or 113st from 137 north, or on St. Albert Trail as far south as Yellowhead at the very least. Elevated through Blatchford would eliminate LRT as a barrier between the residential and NAIT, would fit just fine with institutional and if it came first the residences to the west could be designed and placed to accommodate.
    There can only be one.

  24. #824
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,379

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    Council votes to look more closely at transit-friendly bridge over Yellowhead Trail
    http://globalnews.ca/news/3560770/co...llowhead-trail
    q
    The possibility of a bridge over Yellowhead Trail will be included in planning for the next part of the Metro Line LRT extension into north Edmonton.

    City council voted Tuesday to approve the request for design and engineering work for a connection between the Blatchford and Calder neighbourhoods.


    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    “Instead of doing one thing and then having to go tear something up to do another – which we’ve had to do at times – perhaps, if this works out and its feasible, we could be doing a lot of things in conjunction,” Coun. Dave Loken said. “That would save us not only money, but time.”
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    “The bridge is going to be significant and while we’re being engaged over the Yellowhead, why wouldn’t we save money and look at it all at the same time?” Coun. Bev Esslinger asked during debate.

    The bridge would not only go over the Yellowhead, but also the CN rail yard, allowing those who live in the northwest part of the city easy access to downtown. That’s important to Loken, who told council he hears from constituents who would rather drive than make two connections to get downtown.

    “If we want to talk ridership, we need to provide better transit service and connectivity and timely and more speedy transit service – especially to our downtown – if we’re going to raise our ridership in the north.”
    That moment of realisation of what your Dad told you all those years ago, eh Mr. Loken? :P
    Nisi Dominus Frustra

  25. #825
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    7,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    True that we don't have piles of cheap labour but we have 60 ton excavators, D-10 bulldozers and 50 ton rock trucks that do the work of 1,000 men.

    Still takes 3 years to build 3 miles of track on flat ground at $150 million per mile.


    NUTS!
    I'm still waiting to see what option coe wants to use for Nait line at Kingsway. I'm with option #4. Have I missed something, or are we there yet?
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  26. #826

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by champking View Post
    As a resident of St.Albert I think our portion should be sky trained , done right.
    Once it leaves the City of Edmonton it's entirely up to St. Albert how they want to build and pay for it.

  27. #827
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    7,877

    Default

    ^ Um, about 90% of the lrt connected to St. Albert is in Edmonton. Its the "unofficial part 2" of the Metro line going out to Campbell Rd. From there St. Albert's portion is relatively small. No doubt St. Albert can get the funding for their portion. It seems too me that St. Albert is just waiting for the City of Edmonton, to decide where they want the lrt to go. Fast forward, now that the picture is a little more clear that coe wants to continue South (EIA?) instead of towards St. Albert there's nothing SA can do.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  28. #828

    Default

    The point was that champking said "As a resident of St.Albert I think our portion should be sky trained".

    I was simply letting him know that St. Albert was free to "sky train" it, tunnel or run on the surface. It's up to them, as will any additional costs that "sky training" will incur. It's going to be a big enough fight just to get LRT approved in St. Albert, pressing for a higher priced option will kill it entirely.

  29. #829

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by champking View Post
    As a resident of St.Albert I think our portion should be sky trained , done right.
    Once it leaves the City of Edmonton it's entirely up to St. Albert how they want to build and pay for it.
    No exactly. If St. Albert wanted to design the track so it was at grade level and slow tight runs that caused the trains to have to crawl and wait at stations for a slow signal system, you can bet the the COE would NEVER stand for THAT nonsense!
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  30. #830

    Default

    Maybe they should just go for an Ultra PRT system, as used.....uh.....uhm.....at an airport. And it won't cost St. Albert a penny to build.

  31. #831
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,278

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    No exactly. If St. Albert wanted to design the track so it was at grade level and slow tight runs that caused the trains to have to crawl and wait at stations for a slow signal system, you can bet the the COE would NEVER stand for THAT nonsense!
    You mean like Edmonton is building for the Mill Woods line?

  32. #832
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    South Beverly Heights in a small house with a large lot!!
    Posts
    1,970

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thatguy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevey_G View Post
    Where would you get the funding to elevate the track? What's your answer to the ridership issues that come with limited stops? How would you handle NIMBYISM from homeowners who understandingly don't want a monolithic concrete structure running through their communities?
    it seems to work in vancouver, it's called being in a big city. also, a completely separated track means trains can run faster, with more frequency. as it stands, the metro line and all the lrt the city is building is not designed for the future.
    And that kids is how a REAL large city builds...However, we here in E town once again can look forward to the Bonnie doon boondoggle at Whyte and the traffic circle when it goes.
    Make the RIGHT choice before you take your last breath......

  33. #833
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,536

    Default

    I imagine that St. Albert would be the real winner of any LRT expansion north. They have somewhat of an established core that is vibrant around the City Hall. It seems to take longer for development around Edmonton's LRT stations.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  34. #834

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cnr67 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by thatguy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevey_G View Post
    Where would you get the funding to elevate the track? What's your answer to the ridership issues that come with limited stops? How would you handle NIMBYISM from homeowners who understandingly don't want a monolithic concrete structure running through their communities?
    it seems to work in vancouver, it's called being in a big city. also, a completely separated track means trains can run faster, with more frequency. as it stands, the metro line and all the lrt the city is building is not designed for the future.
    And that kids is how a REAL large city builds...However, we here in E town once again can look forward to the Bonnie doon boondoggle at Whyte and the traffic circle when it goes.
    I think we can call it the Bonnie Doonboggle now. This will make it truly necessary for anyone in Edmonton going N/S to leave the city entirely, circumvent it on the Henday, and re-enter elsewhere. That's good for the environment, right?
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  35. #835
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,973

    Default

    delete
    Last edited by IanO; 01-08-2017 at 05:31 PM.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  36. #836

    Default

    ^ wrong thread, and that issue was completely and fully covered in the proper thread, many times, especially during the playoffs.

  37. #837

    Default

    He said it was interesting, not timely, pertinent, relevant or posted correctly.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  38. #838
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,973

    Default

    Sorry about that boys, my bad. Saw Metro and got excited.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  39. #839

    Default

    I think it's relevant to the whole line, as far as frequency and overall service is concerned. When expanded further north, it will be used to go to Rogers at MacEwan.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  40. #840
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    7,877

    Default

    And just when I thought the City has decided on what option they want. What a let down.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  41. #841

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GenWhy? View Post
    I think it's relevant to the whole line, as far as frequency and overall service is concerned. When expanded further north, it will be used to go to Rogers at MacEwan.
    I suppose further proof that the city is indeed run by idiots. They go on and on and on about planning and yet they constantly mess big things like this up.

  42. #842

    Default

    ^the metro line never made any sense in its limited build (NAIT is really walking distance to the core, a very short bus ride and not a busy route in terms of traffic) - it may make a lot of sense one day once its extended to St Albert, which would take a lot of pressure off NW arterials.

  43. #843

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^the metro line never made any sense in its limited build (NAIT is really walking distance to the core, a very short bus ride and not a busy route in terms of traffic) - it may make a lot of sense one day once its extended to St Albert, which would take a lot of pressure off NW arterials.
    I suppose for those that have a lot of time on their hands on a nice summer day, it might be considered within walking distance, but by that criteria then the U of A main campus is also within walking distance of downtown. Although interesting how both locations had a lot of bus service before the LRT was extended there, obviously a lot of people were not walking there before either.

  44. #844
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,476

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^the metro line never made any sense in its limited build (NAIT is really walking distance to the core, a very short bus ride and not a busy route in terms of traffic) - it may make a lot of sense one day once its extended to St Albert, which would take a lot of pressure off NW arterials.
    Think everyone can agree the Metro line is pretty small - won't reach its first residential till Blatchford. Still, first line in CoE to reach residential planned from the start with transit in mind.

    A start - a start.
    ... gobsmacked

  45. #845
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Castledowns, Edmonton
    Posts
    191

    Default

    Millwoods was built with LRT in mind. Corridors were built but not even used. My buddy has a corridor behind his house that he was assured LRT would be running along in 10 years- That was 1980.

  46. #846
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,536

    Default

    Transit could become an interesting issue this election:

    http://globalnews.ca/news/3729906/tr...al-coun-loken/
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  47. #847
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    7,877

    Default

    ^ Especially for Wards 2 & 3
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  48. #848

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    ^ Especially for Wards 2 & 3
    Maybe someone there could fix the ETS Live to Go app which is not working now. That would be nice.

  49. #849
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    7,877

    Default

    ^ I just use the ETS bus tracker.

    Seriously though SA has been known for its city council infighting. If everyone could get it together and show some unity, then this new initiative might get underway.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  50. #850
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,399

    Default

    I use transit55.ca it's honestly the best site I have used for buses

  51. #851

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mla View Post
    I use transit55.ca it's honestly the best site I have used for buses
    Wow! Very cool and very useful.

    Thanks for posting this!

  52. #852

    Default

    If use the app Transit for Android; there is also an Apple version.. It gives you real time tracking using the GPSes ETS installed on all their buses (though expect the bus to be a bit further along in the route, to account for some lag between the trackers information reaching your app). It automatically shows the routes closest to you, but you can chart directions from two points anywhere on the map. Quite handy

  53. #853

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ustauk View Post
    If use the app Transit for Android; there is also an Apple version.. It gives you real time tracking using the GPSes ETS installed on all their buses (though expect the bus to be a bit further along in the route, to account for some lag between the trackers information reaching your app). It automatically shows the routes closest to you, but you can chart directions from two points anywhere on the map. Quite handy
    Thank you. I found MonTransit which sounds similar and works ok for me so far. While I miss the saved locations of the ETS app a bit, it does show the routes closest too, so that is quite helpful and sort of replaces saved locations. I think it also has a bit of lag (sometimes one to three minutes) probably for the same reason you indicated, but I am not expecting perfection, so am happy enough with that.

  54. #854
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Westmount
    Posts
    3,160

    Default

    Tracks for the north LRT extension could run in trenches to cross under as many as five key intersections.

    The decision would significantly increase the cost of the $1.8-billion line, but would reduce the impact on traffic where the track crosses 137 Avenue, 127 Street, 142 Street, Campbell Road and the intersection of 153 Avenue with 113A Street.

    The designs will be on display at several open houses Tuesday and Thursday, and online after, including one design where trenches are dug to carry the LRT train under covered intersections. City officials want public feedback on the plan.
    http://edmontonjournal.com/news/loca...-to-the-public
    “Son, one day this will be an iconic structure shaping Edmonton’s skyline.”

  55. #855
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    7,877

    Default

    Thanks for the link James, good stuff. I tried to take the survey but its not up yet.

    My only concern with the trench thing is, according to the renders, its dug to deep. Since I wont be able to attend the open house (work) if anyone is listening, I propose that the trench be at least as high as the car windows so people can see out and then have the tracks decline closer to when the LRT gets to the station. Reducing the trench would thus reduce the cost.

    At least we're getting this thing moving. I'm wondering how long its going to take getting from Concept to procurement?
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  56. #856
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,338

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JamesL View Post
    Tracks for the north LRT extension could run in trenches to cross under as many as five key intersections.

    The decision would significantly increase the cost of the $1.8-billion line, but would reduce the impact on traffic where the track crosses 137 Avenue, 127 Street, 142 Street, Campbell Road and the intersection of 153 Avenue with 113A Street.

    The designs will be on display at several open houses Tuesday and Thursday, and online after, including one design where trenches are dug to carry the LRT train under covered intersections. City officials want public feedback on the plan.
    http://edmontonjournal.com/news/loca...-to-the-public
    why you want a platform under a major artery beets me. Very few people within walking distance, no room for bus terminal or park and ride and no high density developments near by. Tunneling under 137 would be less disruptive and could be cheaper than trenching for a train and platform.
    “Canada is the only country in the world that knows how to live without an identity,”-Marshall McLuhan

  57. #857
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,973
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  58. #858

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Glenco View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by JamesL View Post
    Tracks for the north LRT extension could run in trenches to cross under as many as five key intersections.

    The decision would significantly increase the cost of the $1.8-billion line, but would reduce the impact on traffic where the track crosses 137 Avenue, 127 Street, 142 Street, Campbell Road and the intersection of 153 Avenue with 113A Street.

    The designs will be on display at several open houses Tuesday and Thursday, and online after, including one design where trenches are dug to carry the LRT train under covered intersections. City officials want public feedback on the plan.
    http://edmontonjournal.com/news/loca...-to-the-public
    why you want a platform under a major artery beets me. Very few people within walking distance, no room for bus terminal or park and ride and no high density developments near by. Tunneling under 137 would be less disruptive and could be cheaper than trenching for a train and platform.
    I wonder whether someone working on the LRT design wants to deliberately sabotage it or is just really dumb. They keep on coming up with crazy and convoluted ideas or ignoring potential traffic problems, etc... Initially I thought tunneling and trenching were the same thing, but I think I understand the difference now. I don't understand why they would want to put a station there. However, I suppose we should be thankful they didn't decide to put it in the middle of the intersection.

  59. #859

    Default

    I think it's just a rendering, folks.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  60. #860

    Default

    I'm glad the City planners finally saw the light and realized we need grade separation at key intersections in time to plan for it. The intersections with the least traffic impact south of the University is the cut and cover trench track under Belgravia road and the trench where the line intersects 111 st. If we built it there, we can do it for the north line.

  61. #861
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,476

    Default

    Yes, a rendering only - but why all of a sudden will the platforms go from middle to each side?

    And why would you have the platform(s) underground too?
    ... gobsmacked

  62. #862

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by McBoo View Post
    Yes, a rendering only - but why all of a sudden will the platforms go from middle to each side?

    And why would you have the platform(s) underground too?
    I believe the building on the southwest side of the intersection will contain the elevators for the station. I'm guessing they'll be a level undertrench crossing on the southbound track, running between the tunnel to the elevator and the platform. The platform will extend the length of the trench, minus support pillars. Stairs may also be built into the crosswalk canopy sections, but we can't tell that from the rendering

  63. #863

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by McBoo View Post
    Yes, a rendering only - but why all of a sudden will the platforms go from middle to each side?

    And why would you have the platform(s) underground too?
    Then you wouldn't have to raise the train to grade to allow a stop. It's done in many other cities. Works well with large intersections. Is it necessary? This is a conceptual phase. Nothing concrete. It's a rendering to spark interest, nothing more at this stage.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  64. #864
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Windermere
    Posts
    1,910

    Default

    I like the idea. Calgary did this for part of their west extension.

  65. #865

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JamesL View Post
    Tracks for the north LRT extension could run in trenches to cross under as many as five key intersections.

    The decision would significantly increase the cost of the $1.8-billion line, but would reduce the impact on traffic where the track crosses 137 Avenue, 127 Street, 142 Street, Campbell Road and the intersection of 153 Avenue with 113A Street.

    The designs will be on display at several open houses Tuesday and Thursday, and online after, including one design where trenches are dug to carry the LRT train under covered intersections. City officials want public feedback on the plan.
    http://edmontonjournal.com/news/loca...-to-the-public
    This was discussed on the news tonight and I thought I hear them essentially say that raising the line would be 3X cost option but people don’t want to see cars go by and people looking into their yards... something to that effect.


    Sooo... why don’t they just enclose the raised rail lines? Just create an aerial tunnel. Put it in a tube, a big conduit, when it threatens to disturb or invade privacy of nearby residents.

  66. #866
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,153

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by JamesL View Post
    Tracks for the north LRT extension could run in trenches to cross under as many as five key intersections.

    The decision would significantly increase the cost of the $1.8-billion line, but would reduce the impact on traffic where the track crosses 137 Avenue, 127 Street, 142 Street, Campbell Road and the intersection of 153 Avenue with 113A Street.

    The designs will be on display at several open houses Tuesday and Thursday, and online after, including one design where trenches are dug to carry the LRT train under covered intersections. City officials want public feedback on the plan.
    http://edmontonjournal.com/news/loca...-to-the-public
    This was discussed on the news tonight and I thought I hear them essentially say that raising the line would be 3X cost option but people don’t want to see cars go by and people looking into their yards... something to that effect.


    Sooo... why don’t they just enclose the raised rail lines? Just create an aerial tunnel. Put it in a tube, a big conduit, when it threatens to disturb or invade privacy of nearby residents.
    $?

  67. #867

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thatguy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevey_G View Post
    Where would you get the funding to elevate the track? What's your answer to the ridership issues that come with limited stops? How would you handle NIMBYISM from homeowners who understandingly don't want a monolithic concrete structure running through their communities?
    it seems to work in vancouver, it's called being in a big city. also, a completely separated track means trains can run faster, with more frequency. as it stands, the metro line and all the lrt the city is building is not designed for the future.
    that's right. Once you move out of your mom's basement you realise that either you do it right, or dont do it at all. The city of edmonton is still livin with mom.

    even a cocaine addict rob ford understands how to get funding to bury transit underground

  68. #868

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DanC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by JamesL View Post
    Tracks for the north LRT extension could run in trenches to cross under as many as five key intersections.

    The decision would significantly increase the cost of the $1.8-billion line, but would reduce the impact on traffic where the track crosses 137 Avenue, 127 Street, 142 Street, Campbell Road and the intersection of 153 Avenue with 113A Street.

    The designs will be on display at several open houses Tuesday and Thursday, and online after, including one design where trenches are dug to carry the LRT train under covered intersections. City officials want public feedback on the plan.
    http://edmontonjournal.com/news/loca...-to-the-public
    This was discussed on the news tonight and I thought I hear them essentially say that raising the line would be 3X cost option but people don’t want to see cars go by and people looking into their yards... something to that effect.


    Sooo... why don’t they just enclose the raised rail lines? Just create an aerial tunnel. Put it in a tube, a big conduit, when it threatens to disturb or invade privacy of nearby residents.
    $?
    How much could a long shed cost?

    While cool looking, not this:



    Cover loops in nice but cheap metal panel, and only where necessary.

  69. #869

    Default

    At this point all of this is moot unless they can actually get the system working. I don't want it built in my neighbourhood if signals don't work.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  70. #870
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,153

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DanC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by JamesL View Post
    Tracks for the north LRT extension could run in trenches to cross under as many as five key intersections.

    The decision would significantly increase the cost of the $1.8-billion line, but would reduce the impact on traffic where the track crosses 137 Avenue, 127 Street, 142 Street, Campbell Road and the intersection of 153 Avenue with 113A Street.

    The designs will be on display at several open houses Tuesday and Thursday, and online after, including one design where trenches are dug to carry the LRT train under covered intersections. City officials want public feedback on the plan.
    http://edmontonjournal.com/news/loca...-to-the-public
    This was discussed on the news tonight and I thought I hear them essentially say that raising the line would be 3X cost option but people don’t want to see cars go by and people looking into their yards... something to that effect.


    Sooo... why don’t they just enclose the raised rail lines? Just create an aerial tunnel. Put it in a tube, a big conduit, when it threatens to disturb or invade privacy of nearby residents.
    $?
    How much could a long shed cost?

    While cool looking, not this:



    Cover loops in nice but cheap metal panel, and only where necessary.
    What an excellent addition to any neighborhood. A tin shed covered elevated LRT. When do I move in?
    And to make it any sort of reasonable for sound proofing and not a giant megaphone echo chamber, a tin shed isn't going to work.

  71. #871

    Default

    Over engineered. You don't need to create a tube when 's simple screen fence is all that is necessary to block vision. It is more about NIMBYism than anything else. Countless taller buildings & residences are built beside existing ones. There are setback rules and zoning requirements. Why would a LRT be handled any different?
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  72. #872
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    7,877

    Default

    Didn't parts of Vancouver's Evergreen line before they tunneled had a trench like system?

    I like the idea though.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  73. #873

    Default

    ^Most of Vancouver's train line runs over major arterials, along rail corridors and trough old commercial industrial areas, and rarely enters SF home areas that are directly adjacent to it.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  74. #874
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,379

    Default

    Much of London's Underground actually runs overground outside the city's core through long-established residential neighbourhoods, and adjacent to back gardens. I grew up in such an area and never once heard a complaint about noise. I don't really get what the all the fuss here is about.

    Oh, there were no level crossings either.
    Nisi Dominus Frustra

  75. #875
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    7,877

    Default

    ^^ That's why Vancouver's CBTC system works and our CBTC wont. I seem to recall a photo someplace of the Evergreen line around Como lake/North rd area of a trench, similar to the one being proposed for pt 2 of Metro to SA. Granted the Evergreen trench was of shorter distance. Maybe it was a staging area for the boring machine.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  76. #876
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Vancouver - Edmonton
    Posts
    161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    ^^ That's why Vancouver's CBTC system works and our CBTC wont. I seem to recall a photo someplace of the Evergreen line around Como lake/North rd area of a trench, similar to the one being proposed for pt 2 of Metro to SA. Granted the Evergreen trench was of shorter distance. Maybe it was a staging area for the boring machine.
    It was a staging area for the TBM, the closest the Evergreen Extension gets to what was just proposed is Inlet Centre Station which is below an overpass.

  77. #877

    Default

    Evergreen around Como Lake Ave is a tunnel. It comes off a 6 lane (or used to be) road, then ends up on a rail ROW.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  78. #878
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    7,877

    Default

    ^ Thanks, I know. I used to live in one of the condo's just off of Snake road we used to call it in 1973. I've been following Evergreen for quite awhile.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  79. #879
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    7,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by realkevbo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    ^^ That's why Vancouver's CBTC system works and our CBTC wont. I seem to recall a photo someplace of the Evergreen line around Como lake/North rd area of a trench, similar to the one being proposed for pt 2 of Metro to SA. Granted the Evergreen trench was of shorter distance. Maybe it was a staging area for the boring machine.
    It was a staging area for the TBM, the closest the Evergreen Extension gets to what was just proposed is Inlet Centre Station which is below an overpass.
    Thanks for confirming what I thought I knew. I lost track of what's going on with Evergreen once the tunnel was done. Is the Inlet Centre Station in Port Moody?
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  80. #880

    Default

    It's barely with the boundary limits.

    Due to the suburban nature and neighbourhood designs along this LRT route, I'm going to meetings and writing advocating for trenching under major intersections (137ave, 153 ave, and 127 st). But I'd like to see stations be at-grade, especially at the proposed Griesbach Town Centre. If they can make it work without below grade stations, I dunno.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  81. #881

    Default

    Grade separated stations make a lot of sense, especially if they can also provide direct pedestrian access from all sides of the intersection with minimal interaction with traffic. For a rider accessing the station of foot from the opposite corner of the intersection from the station a grade separated option would save a couple minutes just on waiting time. Same with transfers from bus routes on the busy cross aves.

    Stations at 132 and 144/5 could should be something like Belgravia station, only with a better designed pedestrian underpass.
    There can only be one.

  82. #882

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Grade separated stations make a lot of sense, especially if they can also provide direct pedestrian access from all sides of the intersection with minimal interaction with traffic. For a rider accessing the station of foot from the opposite corner of the intersection from the station a grade separated option would save a couple minutes just on waiting time. Same with transfers from bus routes on the busy cross aves.

    Stations at 132 and 144/5 could should be something like Belgravia station, only with a better designed pedestrian underpass.
    Given the intersection is between two well traveled roads, the wait at the lights should not be too long. However, it's been a long time since I have been at that intersection, hopefully it does not have a "beg" button, I do not recall.

    Well if this city really wanted to improve the LRT riders experience, maybe they should consider covering the area where people would be waiting. I suppose that would make it more like a tunnel rather than a trench. Perhaps a trench is the poor man's version of a tunnel. Why does this city always seems to find a way to cheap out and make something that only goes half way and really satisfies no one?

  83. #883

    Default

    It's the well-traveled roads that have the worst wait times. They're the ones with left turn phases (no walking allowed) as well as longer phases, since the green phase has to actually have time for a slow pedestrian to cross and yellow/ all red has to be long enough for cars to clear the intersection.

    I don't think I mind the trench. MacEwan Station is kind of a trench, though not surrounded by traffic. I used to wait for buses in the 118ave trench below Coliseum station, and it was fine. A station where you have the option of standing in the sunshine or in an enclosed station depending on you mood and the weather seems like a good thing to me.
    There can only be one.

  84. #884

    Default

    i actually like these plans, they are trenching under the proper busy intersections.

  85. #885

    Default

    Someone turned the light on in CoE Admin. Too bad it took this long to light that lamp. These simple trenches are EXACTLY what I was looking for under Whyte Ave, under 109st, under 142, 149, and maybe a curved trench to get to 156 street.

    I just wish EDP still posted here so I can gloat.

  86. #886

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    It's the well-traveled roads that have the worst wait times. They're the ones with left turn phases (no walking allowed) as well as longer phases, since the green phase has to actually have time for a slow pedestrian to cross and yellow/ all red has to be long enough for cars to clear the intersection.

    I don't think I mind the trench. MacEwan Station is kind of a trench, though not surrounded by traffic. I used to wait for buses in the 118ave trench below Coliseum station, and it was fine. A station where you have the option of standing in the sunshine or in an enclosed station depending on you mood and the weather seems like a good thing to me.
    Perhaps it is better from the LRT riders perspective than the view from above in the picture makes it look. I think in general it would be good to have a bit more shelter from the elements at LRT stops.

  87. #887

    Default

    Calgary has an example of a lowered station:
    https://goo.gl/maps/1bbvjvzaXK62

  88. #888

    Default

    Personally, the trench at 113a St and 153 Ave would prevent me from making a left turn from McCrae Ave onto 113a. This will make my life objectively worse. Will it be better or worse than if it was at-grade and I had to deal with signal issues? Would they even keep the intersection there? I dunno. I know it would impact me though.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  89. #889
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,278

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    Didn't parts of Vancouver's Evergreen line before they tunneled had a trench like system?

    I like the idea though.
    Not sure about the Evergreen Line, but the Canada Line was planned to be in a trench for a good portion south of downtown, the P3 consortium decided that in the end tunneling it was a better option.

  90. #890
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,518

    Default

    ^Some sections of the Canada Line are tunneled, some sections are cut and cover, and some sections are elevated.

    The Canada Line begins in Downtown Vancouver at Waterfront Station (0.0 km) in a cut-and-cover subway tunnel beneath Granville Street. It quickly goes into twin-bored tunnels, heading southwest beneath Granville Street, then curving southeast to follow Davie Street through Yaletown. The tunnels then dive deeper to pass below False Creek before rising back up to Olympic Village Station (2.7 km). There, the line transitions back to a cut-and-cover tunnel (which is noted by the tunnel changing from a circular to a square shape) heading south under Cambie Street, some portions of which have the two sets of tracks stacked vertically. The line emerges from the ground just south of 64th Avenue, climbing to an elevated guideway.
    In terms of the Metro Line, there should be grade separations at key intersections. There are different ways of doing grade separations (tunnel, cut and cover, trench, elevated) and the best choice should be location specific and based on cost and causing the least disruption.

    Street level is often promoted as being the least disruptive during construction. Yet 102 Avenue in Edmonton is being closed to traffic for three years, the same length of time Cambie Street in Vancouver was closed for cut and cover tunnel construction.

  91. #891

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by B.ike View Post
    Calgary has an example of a lowered station:
    https://goo.gl/maps/1bbvjvzaXK62
    We could never do that here in Edmonton. That would cost...

    Dr Evil Transportation Planners
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  92. #892

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Someone turned the light on in CoE Admin. Too bad it took this long to light that lamp. These simple trenches are EXACTLY what I was looking for under Whyte Ave, under 109st, under 142, 149, and maybe a curved trench to get to 156 street.

    I just wish EDP still posted here so I can gloat.
    I second that motion. You have a right to gloat, even though you are just an armchair engineer.

    You are smarter than those being paid to 'plan' our transit system.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  93. #893

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    Personally, the trench at 113a St and 153 Ave would prevent me from making a left turn from McCrae Ave onto 113a. This will make my life objectively worse. Will it be better or worse than if it was at-grade and I had to deal with signal issues? Would they even keep the intersection there? I dunno. I know it would impact me though.
    to be fair, running LRT along 113A street will make life worse for alot of drivers, including me who use it everyday. Its going to put a ton of cars on 97street and 127street. but I cant see any other way around it.

  94. #894

    Default

    Most of those older neighbourhoods south of 137 ve have multiple entry/exit points, would it be that muchh of an issue? Curious as I live south of the river in a similarly designed 'hood. Is 132 ave that heavily used that if restrcited with at-grade LRT it would be a major issue? I agree on it being an unavoidable route, and I couldn't see the weighted option to trench or elevate that section, myself.

    Curious on funding.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •