Page 2 of 17 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 200 of 1689

Thread: West LRT | Downtown to Lewis Estates | Conceptual Discussion About Approved Route

  1. #101
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cured View Post
    If you were to apply these rules to the linked thread then half the posts that are there would belong here - or on the downtown connector thread.

    I think what has really happened is that the approved SPR route and downtown connector plan don't stand up well to thoughtful and open debate. Anytime someone wants to discuss a shortcoming of the approved route they are quickly silenced by being referred to a different thread.
    On the contrary, there is a whole thread dedicated to debating alternative plans. It's just for some reason, the little thread about the bells and whistles of the current proposal is being taken over for debating that which has its own thread.

    We don't need to have two threads on alternative plans for wLRT.

  2. #102

    Default

    I think what has really happened is that there are only a few people who want to continue the route selection debate by advocating for their preferred route, be it 87ave or Whitemud (lets call these people the "Debaters"). However, those who believe that the current selected route is workable (maybe not their pet choice, but workable, recognizing that every route has pros and cons) aren't interested in that debate anymore; so, the other thread is pretty dead. As such, if the Debaters want to keep up their solipsistic attempts to convince non-debaters of their foolhardy engagement with the current wLRT alignment, they have to come into this thread and note that if their preferred route had been chosen it would solve the current wLRT alignment's detailed engineering issues (note: the Debaters are, self-evidently, correct on this point; although they seem not to recognize that their pet routes come with issues of their own).

  3. #103
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    in that case, let's rename this thread "debating alternatives thread 2" and create a 3rd thread specifically for those of us who wish to focus on approved line design and features only.

    let's then have these debators invade that third thread, claim that suggestions of other routes are the only intelligent way to have an honest debate, at which point we rename that thread to "debating the alternatives thread 3" and create a new thread to discuss approved line and features only.

    repeat.

    repeat.

    repeat.

    repeat until the line is built. then create a thread about "what could have been if we had built wLRT along 87 ave or Whitemud or 95 ave". That is when we will only need a single thread and all will be happy.

  4. #104

    Default

    ^ you know that if 87 avenue was the approved route, you'd be singing a different tune.

  5. #105

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    ^ you know that if 87 avenue was the approved route, you'd be singing a different tune.
    But it wasn't!
    I think of art, at its most significant, as a Distant Early Warning system that can always be relied on to tell the old culture what is beginning to happen to it. —Marshall McLuhan

  6. #106
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    ^ one of those reaaaallllyyyy difficult things to grasp!

    anyhow, since this is a thread about the approved route, and we have had a lot of news on the EXPO, what are the chances Rona comes through with some public works $$ to get us this approved line before she is voted off the island?

  7. #107
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Westmount
    Posts
    3,160

    Default

    ^Given the new-found balanced budget fetish? (Yeah, like that'll help anything.) Not likely.

  8. #108

    Default

    So this thread can still talk about what's wrong with the approved route...right?!??! In hopes that it gets mitigated.... right??? We all need to make sure grish approves of what we post before we post it, cause we all know her as the voice of reason around here /sarcasm

    Anyone believing this routing is almighty and perfect is only fooling themselves. There are many issues, capacity, speed, station placement, future development along the route that still needs to be ironed out. This plan has lots of wrinkles.

  9. #109

  10. #110

    Default





    I think of art, at its most significant, as a Distant Early Warning system that can always be relied on to tell the old culture what is beginning to happen to it. —Marshall McLuhan

  11. #111

    Default

    last one kinda looks like a Vancouver skytrain station at WEM!

    What is the source of these images? Are there more?

  12. #112
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    I like what I see in these renderings.

    it would be nice to see renderings of stops along SPR.
    Last edited by grish; 26-11-2010 at 01:19 PM.

  13. #113
    I think of art, at its most significant, as a Distant Early Warning system that can always be relied on to tell the old culture what is beginning to happen to it. —Marshall McLuhan

  14. #114
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    thanks.

  15. #115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    last one kinda looks like a Vancouver skytrain station at WEM!

    What is the source of these images? Are there more?
    Acid test for Tripe 5: how will they handle the inevitable issue of connecting the LRT station to the mall? Hopefully better than Southgate did!
    I think of art, at its most significant, as a Distant Early Warning system that can always be relied on to tell the old culture what is beginning to happen to it. —Marshall McLuhan

  16. #116

    Default

    from the renderings, it doesn't look like any thought has gone into providing an connection into the mall. Looks like we will still have to trudge through the parking lot.

  17. #117
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,476

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dialog View Post
    Acid test for Tripe 5: how will they handle the inevitable issue of connecting the LRT station to the mall? Hopefully better than Southgate did!
    Boggles the imagination doesn't it? For want of five, six feet Southgate couldn't / wouldn't / wasn't allowed to connect on the second floor level?

    Wow.
    ... gobsmacked

  18. #118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by McBoo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dialog View Post
    Acid test for Tripe 5: how will they handle the inevitable issue of connecting the LRT station to the mall? Hopefully better than Southgate did!
    Boggles the imagination doesn't it? For want of five, six feet Southgate couldn't / wouldn't / wasn't allowed to connect on the second floor level?

    Wow.
    It was that Southgate didn't want to encourage the usage of their parkade as a Park-n-Ride, a pedway would enable that it was felt. I would be surprised if WEM has the resources to care about/police that. During weekdays it has to already be used for that, unofficially...?
    I think of art, at its most significant, as a Distant Early Warning system that can always be relied on to tell the old culture what is beginning to happen to it. —Marshall McLuhan

  19. #119
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,688

    Default

    One major difference though between Southgate and WEM. At Southgate they could have and still could build a pedway into the mall because it will be just a short little bridge and it wouldn't obstruct anything. In the case of WEM, the station would be still quite far away from the mall itself and if they were they were to build an enclosed pedway, that means that potentially they would end up blocking off or at least dividing up the parking lot at ground level or on the second level.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  20. #120
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,476

    Default

    ^^ wouldn't then.

    Still, it's baffling. (and yes - just a few feet) With City Centre closing early, even though I live downtown I find it convenient to hop on the LRT after work and shop at Southgate.

    Crossing the transit mall hasn't deterred me - just made me wonder, gee, am I the only person using LRT to shop?
    ... gobsmacked

  21. #121

    Default

    Maybe WEM could be cajoled into some form of compromise, a covered walkway (perhaps not heated) across a parkade to the mall proper would work. Esp. if the mall continues to decline, they may be open to discussing a way to entice/funnel LRT passengers into the mall when it finally happens.
    I think of art, at its most significant, as a Distant Early Warning system that can always be relied on to tell the old culture what is beginning to happen to it. —Marshall McLuhan

  22. #122
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Folsom, CA
    Posts
    501

    Default

    I really don't like the long elevated section along 87 near the WEM. I think it is unnecessary to elevate the track for such a long distance. Doing so will add significant cost and creates a big unwelcoming space underneath it. What happened to the new style of LRT construction approved by council? The 1.5 km section between 177 street and 164 street looks more infrastructure-heavy than anything we've seen before in Edmonton.

    If the problem area is the 170 Street intersection, elevate or tunnel that section and be done with it. Keep the stations at grade.

  23. #123
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,536

    Default

    I'm thinking there would be three challenges with LRT around here:

    (1) Misericordia Hospital has its main entrance at 87 Avenue, and any ambulance traffic would be competing with an LRT crossing.
    (2) 170 Street.
    (3) Traffic at WEM.

    It might be a more expensive, but I think that the above grade LRT is probably worth the extra money spent.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  24. #124

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    from the renderings, it doesn't look like any thought has gone into providing an connection into the mall. Looks like we will still have to trudge through the parking lot.
    Why are people so obsessed with un-needed pedways in the suburbs, but if anyone suggest one of a much busier road like 104 avenue downtown, that's an outrage?

  25. #125

    Default

    ^ I'm not against either, though I do think an elevated LRT station would warrant a pedway to the mall more so than a ground level LRT Station connecting to another ground level entrance. I'd rather wait 20 seconds for the light to change than to climb a set of stairs just to go back down.

  26. #126

    Default

    One of the LRT planners I spoke to last night indicated WEM maybe demolishing the parking between the LRT station and the mall to make way for more mall. They are talking to WEM to try and integrate the station into this plan. Interestingly enough when I emailed Southgate to ask why there is no 2nd floor connection they blamed the City and said it was the City that did not want it. Ridiculous - Southgate should just build this and now. ETS passengers spend a fortune in that place!

  27. #127
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,688

    Default

    Well if the mall expanded out towards the bus terminal and LRT station that would be just fine.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  28. #128
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,499

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    from the renderings, it doesn't look like any thought has gone into providing an connection into the mall. Looks like we will still have to trudge through the parking lot.
    Why are people so obsessed with un-needed pedways in the suburbs, but if anyone suggest one of a much busier road like 104 avenue downtown, that's an outrage?
    because this pedway would be over a parking lot which will likely never have any active streetfront retail, and it's in an area where we aren't attempting to lure more foot traffic.

  29. #129
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Altaflyer View Post
    One of the LRT planners I spoke to last night indicated WEM maybe demolishing the parking between the LRT station and the mall to make way for more mall. They are talking to WEM to try and integrate the station into this plan. Interestingly enough when I emailed Southgate to ask why there is no 2nd floor connection they blamed the City and said it was the City that did not want it. Ridiculous - Southgate should just build this and now. ETS passengers spend a fortune in that place!
    would be interesting to see what plans WEM might have to mediate the elevated track over its Soth-East parking lot and whether that development they talked about a long while ago will happen.

  30. #130

    Default

    I was a little bored so I did up this map showing the walkablility of the proposed and existing LRT each circle represents 10 min of walking time.


    its interesting to notice that the new lines are designed very well, with lots of overlap between stations. However the new SLRT line is quite bad.

  31. #131
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Westmount
    Posts
    3,160

    Default

    Cool map! Note also the glaring gap between Churchill and Stadium, which I hope gets remedied sooner rather than later.

  32. #132

    Default

    More stations mean more stopping which means slower service. I almost wonder if we are trying to create a bus route on rails rather than a rapid transit system. Someone noted that there are large gaps on the slrt - but the slrt is already at capacity with the stops it has. Walkability does not happen when you have inward facing housing like you have along 111th street. When you have to walk 6 blocks jist to go 1 block as the crow flies those little walkability circles mean squat

  33. #133
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Where ever the pilot takes me
    Posts
    2,096

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JamesL View Post
    Cool map! Note also the glaring gap between Churchill and Stadium, which I hope gets remedied sooner rather than later.
    Ditto, great map. A stop @ 95th street would definitely be nice for my purposes.
    Did my dog just fall into a pothole???

  34. #134

    Default

    Why are people so obsessed with un-needed pedways in the suburbs, but if anyone suggest one of a much busier road like 104 avenue downtown, that's an outrage?
    because this pedway would be over a parking lot which will likely never have any active streetfront retail, and it's in an area where we aren't attempting to lure more foot traffic.
    There isn't ever going to be active streetfront retail in front of Grant MacEwan on 104 at the locations where pedway is proposed. It is the same at WEM (although I guess if replace that parking lot, they could build).

  35. #135
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    366

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Altaflyer View Post
    One of the LRT planners I spoke to last night indicated WEM maybe demolishing the parking between the LRT station and the mall to make way for more mall. They are talking to WEM to try and integrate the station into this plan. Interestingly enough when I emailed Southgate to ask why there is no 2nd floor connection they blamed the City and said it was the City that did not want it. Ridiculous - Southgate should just build this and now. ETS passengers spend a fortune in that place!
    Southgate's story is a bunch of BS. It is Southgate that did not want anything to do with a ped connection for fear of their parkade becoming a park and ride.

  36. #136
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,688

    Default

    ^And if I'm not mistaken, they told the city that the wouldn't mind having a connection but then the city would have to build the southgate parkade for southgate in exchange for the pedway connection.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  37. #137
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    366

    Default

    The LRT station and Mall are both set up to allow a bridge to be built. If the mall wanted it all they would have to do is ask (and of course pay), both of which I doubt they will do. Sorry, this discussion should be on a different thread. I will now refrain from adding anything more on this topic!!

  38. #138
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,688

    Default

    Well I know how this conversation got here but anyways I'm hopeful that the city gives the thumbs up for this route and then can figure out where to get the money from.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  39. #139

    Default

    Hamilton's looking at constructing a low floor line. Similar methodology as here...

    LRT plans for the B-Line in Hamilton












  40. #140

    Default

    And they choses it after a comprehensive study of avl tech... The low floor option won out against such things as monorail....

    http://www.hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/...gyAnalysis.pdf
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  41. #141
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    566

    Default

    Edmonton council OKs track placement for new LRT lines
    West, southeast extensions would cost $2.5B
    By Gordon Kent, edmontonjournal.com January 19, 2011


    In the west, the tracks will follow 104th Avenue and Stony Plain Road, then go south on 156th Street.

    A recommended change from angling along Meadowlark Road was turned down, and the tracks will continue west on 87th Avenue to Lewis Estates



    Read more: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...#ixzz1Bh4Pry1M

    Good to see they've gone back to the Meadowlark Road alignment.

  42. #142

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    And they choses it after a comprehensive study of avl tech... The low floor option won out against such things as monorail....

    http://www.hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/...gyAnalysis.pdf
    note worthy that this is their first LRT line, and they didn't have any existing fleet or lines or infrastructure...

  43. #143

    Default

    ^that's true, no bias, they just picked what the best system is today. It is quite an interesting document, talks about a lot of the low floor technology and the different manufacturers.

  44. #144

    Default

    I love this little section... PRT eat your heart out


    Eric Bruun (2005) performed one such study published in the Transportation Research Record in 2005. His
    study estimated operating cost differences for BRT and LRT using a parametric cost model and National
    Transit Database (NTD) information. The study assumed train sizes of 28 m and bus sizes of 18 m.
    Marginal cost estimates were included to more accurately describe peak hour demand costs, when
    additional vehicles are required to meet demand. The study was completed for a medium sized city, based
    on Dallas Texas and using the data from all cities reporting in the NTD. It was also assumed that the cost to
    operate one light rail vehicle (LRV) per year is $1.4 million; the cost for one bus per year is $600 000; and
    the cost for one BRT is between $835,000 to $934,000 per vehicle per year, depending on the upgrades
    over a standard articulated vehicle the bus has. The assumed extra cost for BRT is a result of its train like
    operation such as dedicated right of way, possible variation in power supply from traditional busses, cost to
    maintain a fleet that differs from the standard and new emissions and drives technologies.
    While it is clear that on a per-vehicle basis, LRT systems are the more expensive, the findings indicate that
    if the peak ridership demand of the system is 1556 passenger spaces (both seated and standing
    passengers) per hour or less, then BRT provides a better cost effectiveness than LRT. However, as peak
    demand (ridership) increases, the LRT system becomes significantly less costly to operate than a bus or
    BRT system (24% less expensive). BRT costs increase at a constant rate as ridership grows, since each
    bus needs an additional driver. However, LRT systems only increase in cost when a new driver is needed
    for an additional train, which is equivalent to 2 to 4 busses. LRT also becomes more attractive and less
    costly to operate than BRT, as service becomes more frequent and headways decrease, to provide
    increased capacity. Using the NTD data, as outlined in figure 26, the marginal cost increase for LRT is March 30, 2009
    Page 43 of 63
    Light Rail Technology Analysis
    significantly less than busses or BRT. This gives LRT the advantage if off peak demand is expected to
    increase in the future, or if ridership is higher than projected

    -end quote-

    In short LRT, if used as a back bone for a system, can result in transportation cost savings!
    Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 21-01-2011 at 01:40 PM.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  45. #145

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    And they choses it after a comprehensive study of avl tech... The low floor option won out against such things as monorail....

    http://www.hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/...gyAnalysis.pdf
    note worthy that this is their first LRT line, and they didn't have any existing fleet or lines or infrastructure...
    No but they did have existing plans that they deviated from....
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  46. #146

    Default

    ^ much like how our plans for our network of high floor network have deviated over the years... and now we have plans for a brand new network, leaving the old network, unfinished (but I've gone over this point many times...)

  47. #147
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,278

    Default

    There is no particular reason why SE, W need to be low floor, they could be high floor, low floor, PRT even monorail. As for high floor being unfinished the only significant area of expansion is NW or N towards either St Albert or Namao after it gets to NAIT.
    Unfortunately as the City Center Airport is still open it does limit plans for NW.

    As for the original plans in 1972 we are slowly moving towards it, not exactly the same plan, but similar

  48. #148
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,688

    Default

    ^Two of the extensions I like from the 72 plan that I think should still be considered are
    1) An extension towards Northgate and maybe towards the Garrison
    2) An extension towards the SW such as to Windermere.

    Ain't it amazing though to think, what if this system had been built when it was supposed to be built, back in the 70's, what our system would look like now, and for that matter what the city would look like now.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  49. #149

    Default

    ^there could have been less sprawl, and maybe a few more corporations would have set up downtown. It's sad, the decision to go underground and the took time, cost money (that could have built much of that network), caused disruption, and took life off the streets and onto the pedway,
    Last edited by moahunter; 22-01-2011 at 07:45 AM.

  50. #150

    Default

    The worst part wasnt the underground part. It was that we stopped building for 15 years.
    Calgary has street level lrt but still has a huge pedway system

    The conclusions moahunter is drawing are false bigtime

  51. #151
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,688

    Default

    And that's the thing, the stoppage in construction is what hurt Edmonton so much. Even if they had simply built 1 new station every 3 or 4 years, we would have been much further along than we are now.

    Well probably the most important lesson that Edmonton and Edmontonians have learned from the past regarding the LRT is that we can't let planning and especially construction to stop. Once the NLRT to nait, WLRT to Lewis Estates and SELRT to Millwoods is completed, I feel there should already be construction towards currently proposed locations and new plans for other locations throughout the city and region.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  52. #152

    Default

    Wasn't one of the reasons that LRT expansion was halted after University station was that, as of 1992, Edmonton had Canada's least modern bus fleet and almost all monies possible went into the 10 year-long fleet upgrade? It bummed me out to hear this as the station opened for my first year at the U of A, but I recall then the "10 years till there's money for anything else" timeframe was known.
    I think of art, at its most significant, as a Distant Early Warning system that can always be relied on to tell the old culture what is beginning to happen to it. —Marshall McLuhan

  53. #153

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    The worst part wasnt the underground part. It was that we stopped building for 15 years.
    I disagree, if the expense of building the tunnels had not happened, then most of that network would have been built for the same price. The reality is that the project got stalled because we had wasted all our cash. I remember how crazy long and expensive it was just to dig out of University, none of that wasted money was necessary, it could have been laying track throughout the City (which is what Calgary did).

  54. #154
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Ozerna, North Edmonton
    Posts
    8,961

    Default

    Let's not forget that Calgary got a nice handout for the 88 Olympics towards their LRT. In a 10 years when our SELRT and WLRT and complete, I think Edmonton's LRT system will be better, the tunnel was definitely the way to go thinking longterm.

  55. #155

    Default

    The tunnel really wasn't that expensive.

    How much lrt can you build with zero funding. The answer is the same regardless of tunnel or no tunnel low floor or high floor.

  56. #156

    Default

    Calgary also borrowed heavily to build their lrt system. We enjoy lower tax rates because of this. Fiscally Conservative Edmonton stop constructing while Calgary powered ahead

  57. #157

    Default

    ^please post a source that Calgary spent considerably more than Edmonton.

    "Like a groundhog coming out of its hole a few weeks early, Edmonton's Light Rail Transit has finally surfaced again after decades of living a subterranean existence" applauded the Edmonton Sun (4 January 2006) in an editorial titled "Nice to SEE the LRT". While emphasizing that "The Edmonton Sun has always been an enthusiastic backer of Edmonton's light rail transportation system", the paper pointed out that the line's character as an entirely grade-separated, subway system had constrained its expansion, particularly in comparison to Calgary's surface-routed LRT system:

    But after all the whoopla dies down, it still hurts to look south to see what Alberta's second city has done with relatively the same amount of LRT dough and wonder if Edmontonians could have spent ours better. While Edmonton's commuter railway still amounts to little more than a leg and a stump, Calgary city council has been able to lay rails to three of its four quadrants.

    The main reason is that Cowtown's civic politicians decided to run their trains on surface through the downtown core. Edmonton chose the vastly more expensive route of going underground. Now, after nearly 38 years, the LRT finally gets to see its shadow again on the south side of the river.

    Of course, there's no use crying over spilled millions. But now that the trains are on surface again – where engineering and construction costs are exponentially less – it's time to get on with the job of providing Edmontonians with a light rail transit system that services all parts of the city. And without losing sight of Edmonton's balanced transportation needs, possibly beyond.
    http://www.lightrailnow.org/news/n_edm_2006-03a.htm
    Last edited by moahunter; 22-01-2011 at 06:47 PM.

  58. #158
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    566

    Default

    This article shows that Calgary spent(invested) 75% more than Edmonton to build its LRT up to the year 2000. If Edmonton had kept pace spending wise, then who knows where we'd be today...

    http://www.ottawa.ca/residents/publi...calgary_en.pdf

  59. #159

    Default

    Who's saying Calgary spent more? I'm saying Calgary cntinued to invest it their network while we sat and did nothing.
    I'm not trying to dispute the cost of the tunnel. It was more expensive than a surface route no doubt. But to me there is great benefits and advantages to having a tunnel through downtown.

  60. #160
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,536

    Default

    Looking back, I think a couple of things slowed Edmonton's LRT:

    (1) Edmonton's mayor from 1968-74, Ivor Dent, proposed a city-wide LRT network. However, Edmonton balked at the expense, and Dent was defeated by Bill Hawrelak for mayor in the 1974 Civic Election.

    (2) Edmonton had resistance from the University of Alberta and various communities over the alignment, and construction that should have taken 10 years (1985-1995) took 25 years instead.

    Edmonton is slowly starting to recover from these squandered opportunities, but it's still a "look over your shoulder" mentality when it comes to thinking big.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  61. #161
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    ^let's not forget the price to go on High Level Bridge instead of another bridge + tunnel + tunnel out. I wouldn't be shocked if the additional costs wouldn't have paid for Century Park line in today's $$.

  62. #162

    Default

    HLB would've been ideal, but CP refused to sell at a reasonable price. Funny thing is, only a few years after the LRT bridge was built, CP sold the bridge to the city for $1.00

  63. #163
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,688

    Default

    Well that's where LRT will have an opportunity to use the HLB for the circle line that it has proposed so maybe in the long run this will have worked out better for Edmonton.

    Calgary didn't spend more money on their LRT but they spent money much much quicker on their LRT and of course they are continueing to spend the money for more LRT. Now if Edmonton can get all this work done that has been proposed, we are going to catch up really really quickly to the amount of track that Calgary now has.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  64. #164

    Default

    HLB future use is currently reserved for HSR...

  65. #165

    Default

    ^ you know I have NEVER seen that actually written anywhere.

    If High Speed ever gets built it will stop South of the river...and be attached to the LRT network.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  66. #166
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    566

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmcowboy11 View Post
    Well that's where LRT will have an opportunity to use the HLB for the circle line that it has proposed so maybe in the long run this will have worked out better for Edmonton.

    Calgary didn't spend more money on their LRT but they spent money much much quicker on their LRT and of course they are continueing to spend the money for more LRT. Now if Edmonton can get all this work done that has been proposed, we are going to catch up really really quickly to the amount of track that Calgary now has.
    Calgary DID spend significantly more on their LRT, and they did it at a time when they could benefit from relatively low construction prices. Also, Calgary continues to expand their LRT by doing it in relatively bite sized chunks that make more attractive funding requests. Edmonton has decided to go for broke with an multibillion dollar new system that requires so much money to get off the ground that it is not looking very attractive to upper levels of government(especially when they're both already running huge deficits). We might be lucky to get $200M spread over 3 to 5 years from the province and maybe a similar amount from the feds. That leaves a huge funding shortfall for the city to make up.

    With no real hints of a major funding announcement on the horizon i would start looking for ways to tie in the new legs to the current line. This way you can at least expand the LRT station by station and not get left in the dust by other cities - such as Calgary.

  67. #167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    ^ you know I have NEVER seen that actually written anywhere.

    If High Speed ever gets built it will stop South of the river...and be attached to the LRT network.
    Not surprising this information isn't spoon-feed to you at lrt consultation sessions.

    Hsr if built is planed to stop between the ledge and grandin station
    Last edited by Medwards; 24-01-2011 at 08:54 AM.

  68. #168
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,688

    Default

    ^Remember there are also the plans for the LRT downtown connector and the Whyte Ave line to cross the river via the high level bridge. My bets are on the LRT getting the HLB before HSR.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  69. #169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cured View Post
    Also, Calgary continues to expand their LRT by doing it in relatively bite sized chunks that make more attractive funding requests.
    Ummm, please explain. WLRT in Calgary is a huge project at the moment, it isn't a "bite size chunk". Edmonton has been the one doing pathetic little bite site chunks, like the NAIT expansion (which is stupidly expensive for what it is).

    It isn't the size of the project, it is how it is presented and funded. 3 or 4 billion spread over, say, a 40 or 50 year life span is more efficient than trying to fund everything day to day with continual funding requests year after year. Its the short term "bite size" approach Edmonton has taken rather than getting on with the full network, which has delayed matters. Now its changing, and thats a good thing, if we put it all together to scale up into an international size project spread over many years, we will get plenty of proper international bids, some competition, a cheaper and better system.
    Last edited by moahunter; 24-01-2011 at 09:24 AM.

  70. #170

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Hsr if built is planed to stop between the ledge and grandin station
    This is correct, that's the plan (so politicians can jump off at the Legislature). The next step was going to be a tunnel coming out around the EPCOR tower for a future Fort McMurray expansion one day.

  71. #171

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    ^ you know I have NEVER seen that actually written anywhere.

    If High Speed ever gets built it will stop South of the river...and be attached to the LRT network.
    Not surprising this information isn't spoon-feed to you at lrt consultation sessions.

    Hsr if built is planed to stop between the ledge and grandin station
    Care to produce the proof...

    Again with the looking down your nose at people...
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  72. #172

    Default

    ok so....
    http://www.albertahighspeedrail.com/routeMap.html

    The Greenfield Route


    The Greenfield Route is the name given to the alignment that lies largely on undeveloped land, the majority of which is farmland. The basic alignment was identified in a study undertaken by the Government of Alberta in 1984. It will run about a mile west of Highway #2, and will provide a nearly straight alignment suitable for 300 km/hr electric train operation over the entire length between Airdrie and Nisku. The system will be a dedicated, double-track passenger line. Bridges will be used to separate the roads from the railway and the entire route will be fenced for safety. Three stations are planned for each of Edmonton and Calgary, and one for Red Deer. Service will run non-stop between the three cities. The proposed Red Deer station could be located about 1.5 kilometers west of the city.


    Is Identified the same as "set aside for"

    To the best of my research NO land has been acquired for this project. No is there ANY formal movement of commitment to this plan apart from the study that was done a few years ago.

    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  73. #173
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,499

    Default

    Penfold?

    that map just lost all credibility.

  74. #174
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,536

    Default

    One thing, if the province does not have enough money for LRT (which I think it will eventually provide), I think High-Speed Rail is not even a consideration, for at least 10 years.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  75. #175

    Default

    ^getting a bit off thread. That's a bit like saying though, we shouldn't build LRT because we need more money for healthcare. Regional transportation (e.g. AHD, inter-city freeways, etc.) is a different issue from Inner city transportation (bus networks, local roads, LRT, etc.). The Province has responsibilities in both, don't forget, people don't just in Alberta live in Edmonton and Calgary.

  76. #176

    Default

    I could do more research for you EDP, but sometimes, you should do your own. I know what I speak of.

    Here's what a quick google search reveals. I don't have time to burden you with more proof:

    2007: The province announces it has acquired land in downtown Calgary and Edmonton that could be used for rail stations.
    http://www2.canada.com/calgaryherald...6-ec53cd24b161

    I don't have time to dig around for more, but the station location is the empty parking lot on 109st south of 99ave. They also have secured the rights for high speed rail over the high level bridge, and are temporary leasing the bridge to the high level street car

    It's also my understanding from previous research that the AB government has also bought 90% of the greenfield route. Whether HSR travels that route, is another thing, but it will be used as a TUC.

    Back to LRT... and looking down the nose or whatever you think I'm doing.
    Last edited by Medwards; 24-01-2011 at 11:33 AM.

  77. #177
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmcowboy11 View Post
    ^Remember there are also the plans for the LRT downtown connector and the Whyte Ave line to cross the river via the high level bridge. My bets are on the LRT getting the HLB before HSR.
    I sure hope so.

    HSR should go on its own bridge which is hopefully considered when the Wlaterdale replacement is designed. But that's conversation for two other threads.

  78. #178

    Default

    How much longer does the Highlevel have anyways... another 50 years?
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  79. #179

    Default

    ^if it is maintained properly, with good anti-corrosion technolgoy and similar, why can't it last forever?

  80. #180

    Default

    I imagine that is rather impossible.....
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  81. #181

    Default

    ^why? Corosion can be eliminated with Anodes. And parts that decline can be replaced or refurbished.

  82. #182

    Default

    neither of us are bridge engineers I won't pretend to know.... Everything has a life span though.. nothing is for ever.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  83. #183

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    How much longer does the Highlevel have anyways... another 50 years?
    High Level Bridge would be a mistake for high speed trains. Because of the construction and age, there would be a severe speed restriction (probably around 30km/h) on the bridge; or prohibitively expensive upgrades that would make a new bridge much cheaper.

    Does High Speed rail need to go downtown? Why not a good quality station in Old Scona connected by LRT to downtown and the rest of the city.

    Due to Edmonton short-sightedness, most of the rail corridors leading into downtown have been sold for development.
    ETS Trolley Buses - 1939 to 2010 - R.I.P.

  84. #184
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,476

    Default

    ^I doubt it would get anywhere near up to speed till after the south Edmonton station.

    If it's ever even built.
    ... gobsmacked

  85. #185
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,278

    Default

    Lightrail speed restriction isn't as big of as issue as you think, for example TGVs take quite a while to build up speed to 300 km/h this is somewhere around 5 miles or so. I remember taking the Eurostar from Waterloo a Southern or South Eastern train left about the same time, it was way ahead as it accelarated quicker but after a few minutes the Eurostar overtook it.

    As for lifespan with proper painting a steel bridge can last almost forever. Although stress fractures can develop but typically the major problem is rust.

  86. #186
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    .
    ...
    I don't have time to dig around for more, but the station location is the empty parking lot on 109st south of 99ave. They also have secured the rights for high speed rail over the high level bridge, and are temporary leasing the bridge to the high level street car
    ...
    The bridge is owned by the city, and the path north of the bridge belongs to the city, but the station location (parking lots) and the ROW south of the bridge belong to the province, as far as I know.

    Whether LRT or HSR, it will take cooperation from both parties to get it built.

  87. #187
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    566

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Cured View Post
    Also, Calgary continues to expand their LRT by doing it in relatively bite sized chunks that make more attractive funding requests.
    Ummm, please explain. WLRT in Calgary is a huge project at the moment, it isn't a "bite size chunk". Edmonton has been the one doing pathetic little bite site chunks, like the NAIT expansion (which is stupidly expensive for what it is).

    It isn't the size of the project, it is how it is presented and funded. 3 or 4 billion spread over, say, a 40 or 50 year life span is more efficient than trying to fund everything day to day with continual funding requests year after year. Its the short term "bite size" approach Edmonton has taken rather than getting on with the full network, which has delayed matters. Now its changing, and thats a good thing, if we put it all together to scale up into an international size project spread over many years, we will get plenty of proper international bids, some competition, a cheaper and better system.
    The Calgary WLRT may be large in scope, but it a relatively small financial chunk when compared to what was recently approved here. $700M gets them their entire west leg up and running. The budget for the SE line is over $1B and that only gets Millwoods passengers as far as 96 street in the yet to be Quarters.

    Governments aren't looking out 40 to 50 years in the future when they're looking at providing funding to the municipalities. They're only going to be looking 3 to 4 years ahead before their term is up for renewal.

    To get a whole new system up and running is MUCH more capital intensive than adding to a current system. We are likely to be waiting a long time to see LRT to WEM based on the current plan.

  88. #188
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Ozerna, North Edmonton
    Posts
    8,961

    Default

    ^ their WLRT had over $300 million in added costs like land acquisition bringing it to around $1 billion, seems quite high considering it is only 8 km and has 7 stations.

    http://www.calgarysun.com/news/colum.../15236351.html

  89. #189
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,688

    Default

    Well I'm not opposed to the HSR but I put it in the catagory of "may happen one day, but don't hold your breath for too long"
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  90. #190

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cured View Post
    To get a whole new system up and running is MUCH more capital intensive than adding to a current system.
    Why exactly is it cheaper to lay track to join an existing line as opposed to laying track that doesn't join? As an example, the full WLRT - Millwoods plan at around $3 billion is a much lower track cost per kilometer than the NAIT LRT extension. One of the advantages of going for the new line is it may be much cheaper than extending what has of late, been a very expensive line to extend. This is proven by other cities that have built new low floor LRT lines at very reasonable prices. As the system can be put out to tender, intenrational bidders can bring their "off the shelf" technology to the table, we don't have to reinvent a wheel this time and the bidders won't in anyway be constrained by the build standards / old technology in the existing line.
    Last edited by moahunter; 25-01-2011 at 08:43 AM.

  91. #191

    Default

    3.8 billion actually compare that to the cost of slrt

  92. #192

    Default

    ^SLRT was priced out a decade ago, NAIT is more recent comparison.

  93. #193

    Default

    3.8 billiion includes Nait. $3billion is the cost of seLRT-wLRT portion.

  94. #194

    Default

    ^ and DT
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  95. #195

    Default

    as for those people that still state that the West and SE lines should have went through the tunnels here is your answer

    "Another challenge facing LRT development in Edmonton appears to be the limited capacity provided by the downtown LRT tunnel...The shortest possible headways on the tunnel system are about 2 to 2.5 minutes...The City of Edmonton recognizes the long term operating constraints within the downtown tunnel system and that the system cannot operate beyond a four-legged network."

    this comes from the paragraph at the top of page 39 of the below report

    http://www.capitalregionboard.ab.ca/..._transit_e.pdf

    Since a new way to cross the downtown would be necessary anyways, I'd rather save the capacity of the tunnel to increase frequencies of the existing routes rather than adding new routes.

  96. #196

    Default

    ^interesting find (albeit we are all off topic). This conclusion about high speed rail making more sense for the International Airport is obvious as well "The incremental cost for serving the airport would be modest compared to extending an LRT line from Anthony Henday Drive to the Edmonton International Airport".

  97. #197

    Default

    I've only ever stated that the West line should use the tunnel downtown via University. I've made several diagrams with various routes, but I would only support the tunnel use for the west line to be the balance in the 3 legged system we have now.

    I'm also not opposed to low floor lrt (streetcar variety as being pitched here). It has its place. A nice straight run down any of the major e-w avenues 118ave, 111ave, 107 ave, 104 ave, or a combination of those would work. 109st from CCA redevelopment to strathcona or further south as well are good examples.

  98. #198
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,518

    Default

    ^ Note that the report you quote says the downtown tunnel cannot operate beyond a four-legged network.

    The current 3 or 4 car trains operating on a 5 minute headway means 42 cars per hour go through the tunnel in each direction of a two-legged network. 5 car trains operating through the tunnel on an interlined four-legged network with a 2 minute headway means 150 cars per hour could go through the tunnel in each direction.

    This means that the downtown tunnel is currently operating at less than one-third of its rated capacity. What's wasteful is failing to optimize the investment already made in the downtown tunnel by building duplicate infrastructure at street level.

    The SE LRT could terminate at Churchill Station. An East LRT line could be interlined with the SE line as far as Bonnie Doon and then branch off east to Sherwood Park.

  99. #199
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    ^ Note that the report you quote says the downtown tunnel cannot operate beyond a four-legged network.

    The current 3 or 4 car trains operating on a 5 minute headway means 42 cars per hour go through the tunnel in each direction of a two-legged network. 5 car trains operating through the tunnel on an interlined four-legged network with a 2 minute headway means 150 cars per hour could go through the tunnel in each direction.

    This means that the downtown tunnel is currently operating at less than one-third of its rated capacity. What's wasteful is failing to optimize the investment already made in the downtown tunnel by building duplicate infrastructure at street level.

    The SE LRT could terminate at Churchill Station. An East LRT line could be interlined with the SE line as far as Bonnie Doon and then branch off east to Sherwood Park.
    To be fair, there should be more than 48cars per hour, based on today's demand, it's just that we don't have the power systems yet. I think the plan is for 5 car trains at 6 minute while the NLRT wye is under construction, that's 50 cars, and when the original line is extended to gorman and heritage valley there will be demand for more like 60+ per hour on just that line.

    The tunnel wouldn't be at capacity with 2 lines, but it would be close enough that another equally successful line wouldn't work.

  100. #200
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    566

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Cured View Post
    To get a whole new system up and running is MUCH more capital intensive than adding to a current system.
    Why exactly is it cheaper to lay track to join an existing line as opposed to laying track that doesn't join? As an example, the full WLRT - Millwoods plan at around $3 billion is a much lower track cost per kilometer than the NAIT LRT extension. One of the advantages of going for the new line is it may be much cheaper than extending what has of late, been a very expensive line to extend. This is proven by other cities that have built new low floor LRT lines at very reasonable prices. As the system can be put out to tender, intenrational bidders can bring their "off the shelf" technology to the table, we don't have to reinvent a wheel this time and the bidders won't in anyway be constrained by the build standards / old technology in the existing line.
    Lower track per km costs mean little to the upper levels of government that will ultimately be providing the majority of the funding. There is a constant competition for infrastructure dollars from all over the country. $100M is already a big ask these days, $1B is a ridiculous amount and is more likely to be brushed aside. If there is a $1B solution to the WLRT that ties directly in to our existing network and directly impacts a higher number of riders(voters) that are already there, then that is something that is going to look alot more palatable to the men in suits that write the cheques than a west leg that requires an additional $2B in infrastructure and may or may not spur future development.

Page 2 of 17 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast

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
  •