Page 3 of 25 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 300 of 2431

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

  1. #201
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    566

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hilman View Post
    ^ 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
    Yes. You are right, that is huge and i did miss it.

    Although, even at that price it works out cheaper than ours. And let's not kid ourselves either, as there are liking to be hidden costs associated with our ultimate WLRT build out. Such as road upgrades or grade separation at 142 street, 149 street, 107th ave, etc. Just hopefully not on the same scale as the Calgary example.

  2. #202
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    566

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by banisheddragon View Post
    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.

    Yes, OK. But why not finish the 4th leg first before starting the 5th.

    Given the choice, i'd rather see interlining on the subway portion than on the surface portion. If interlining capacity issues are being raised for the existing track where there is no impact with vehicular and pedestrian traffic, then it would be fair to raise the same concern with the downtown connector/circulator where it directly impacts the existing road network. A train each direction every 3 to 5 minutes and tracks that go N/S and E/W across major downtown roads is likely going to be a larger concern than capacity issues in the tunnel.

  3. #203
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,285

    Default

    That 2-2.5 minute headway could easily be cut down with some upgrades to the signalling etc. But yes, the tunnel capacity has limits.

  4. #204

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    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.
    No but ya did go on and on about the city was not maximizing infrastructure, and they clearly are... further to that they clearly have a plan in place for the future.
    Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 26-01-2011 at 02:12 AM.
    "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

  5. #205

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by etownboarder View Post
    That 2-2.5 minute headway could easily be cut down with some upgrades to the signalling etc. But yes, the tunnel capacity has limits.
    I think if it could have easily been cut down it would have been included in the report....
    "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

  6. #206

    Default

    2 min headways is a train every 6 minutes in 6 legged system.

    I have said much bout maximizing infrastructure and I don't see any plans on doing that with the tunnel.

  7. #207

    Default

    ^the plans include increasing the number of car capacity so we can get more riders from SLRT, and brining NAIT and St Albert on line. If (and it is an "if", I think ridership / demand from St Albert will be huge) there is still capacity after that, then I think extensions to Gorman, and perhaps even Windermere or Souith to Ellerslie will be options.
    Last edited by moahunter; 26-01-2011 at 09:47 AM.

  8. #208

    Default

    Again ...University avenue LRT/Road crossing can not deal with any more trains because of the shortsightedness of not grade-separating this crossing. We can't run another line down to Windermere, unless it spokes off of before University Avenue crossing.
    We will be permanently left with a 3 legs out of 6 potential legs through our tunnel once the shovels come out for WLRT via Stony plain road.
    Increasing the number of cars in a consist doesn't matter so much. It's the headways that are important in tunnel capacity.

  9. #209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Again ...University avenue LRT/Road crossing can not deal with any more trains because of the shortsightedness of not grade-separating this crossing.
    You do realize that can be corrected, for example by diverting traffic past the butterdome rather than university avenue? Or a future over or underpass. I think if it is ever a constraint it can be upgraded a lot cheaper than the tunnel / bridge cost would have been to 87 avenue.

  10. #210

    Default

    You'll never have people in Windsor Park accept sending traffic down 87avenue to groat road. Good luck with that. You'd have a better chance of rebuilding Keilor Road and sending traffic from fox drive to Groat road that way, that's not going to happen either.

    But - let's continue down the merry road of putting blind faith that this 'forced' upon us route via stony plain road wont have any severe traffic problems....
    Last edited by Medwards; 26-01-2011 at 11:35 AM.

  11. #211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    You'll never have people in Windsor Park accept sending traffic down 87avenue to groat road. Good luck with that. You'd have a better chance of rebuilding Keilor Road and sending traffic from fox drive to Groat road that way, that's not going to happen either..
    You don't understand what I am saying. You can already turn off groat road, drive past the butterdome (i.e. over LRT tunnel), and come up past Health Sciences to University Avenue. I'm saying, make that the only way and turn the top part of groat into a quiet neighborhood road (residents would love this). With only 3 roads none of which cross the line at university avenue, all the issues with the train disapear.

  12. #212

    Default

    You don't understand what I'm saying. The university doesn't want all the traffic flowing into their campus, and the residents of Windsor Park won't want all the extra traffic coming down 87th avenue. You'd also screw up the connection with Whyte Avenue.
    I understand that you can already travel this way, but fact is - most don't because it adds extra time to the travel.

  13. #213

    Default

    ^Aside from rush hour, I think its a pretty minor issue. If it needs to be upgraded in the future, it can. WLRT has various alternative traffic routes, like 107 avenue and 111 avenue (or better yet, people can take the new LRT).

  14. #214

    Default

    Exactly.. and your never going to be free of problem intersections...Congestion and hold up aren't bad..

    We want a denser city, and this is what happens. We can't always have our cake and eat it too.
    "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

  15. #215

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^Aside from rush hour, I think its a pretty minor issue. If it needs to be upgraded in the future, it can. WLRT has various alternative traffic routes, like 107 avenue and 111 avenue (or better yet, people can take the new LRT).
    backpedal.

  16. #216

    Default

    ^how so? My upgrade if ever needed, would be to simply divert the traffic (don't see why UofA would care, or how they could stop it even if they did). Alternatively, as I wrote, overpass or underpass would still be a lot cheaper than a tunnel/bridge to 87 avenue.

  17. #217

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Exactly.. and your never going to be free of problem intersections...Congestion and hold up aren't bad..

    We want a denser city, and this is what happens. We can't always have our cake and eat it too.
    We can certainly mitigate negative outcomes. I've outlined many of them, and suggested reasonable solutions. All I get in response from you is "LRT Planners know what they are doing, you must instill blind faith in them"

  18. #218

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^how so? My upgrade if ever needed, would be to simply divert the traffic (don't see why UofA would care, or how they could stop it even if they did). Alternatively, as I wrote, overpass or underpassl would still be a lot cheaper than a tunnel/bridge to 87 avenue.
    You don't need to tunnel to 87th avenue for WLRT. No more than you need for proposed lowfloor SELRT.

  19. #219

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Exactly.. and your never going to be free of problem intersections...Congestion and hold up aren't bad..

    We want a denser city, and this is what happens. We can't always have our cake and eat it too.
    We can certainly mitigate negative outcomes. I've outlined many of them, and suggested reasonable solutions. All I get in response from you is "LRT Planners know what they are doing, you must instill blind faith in them"
    Yes your correct... you have outlined solutions... And i will continue to remind that traffic continues to flow and people still manage to get where they need to go...

    Money is better spent other places than ensuring the auto continues to rein supreme
    "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

  20. #220

    Default

    Running lrt lines to spite car drivers is not how to plan lrt lines

  21. #221
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    399

    Default

    ^ I second that

  22. #222

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Running lrt lines to spite car drivers is not how to plan lrt lines
    im not spiting anyone.. your taking that stance not me.
    "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

  23. #223

    Default

    I disagree, traffic does not continue to flow. It now sits and waits for many lights to get through at some intersections because we didn't properly design slrt, and we are taking the mistakes we made in slrt, and making them worse with the design of WLRT.

  24. #224

    Default

    ^so instead of building NAIT right now, you would have preferred if that money had been spent on SLRT making it "perfect" so that people never have to wait a few minutes in their SUV's? Its that sort of backwards LRT planning which has got us squat LRT. Why we can't learn from Calagary where they accept LRT running through intersections is beyond me, I guess transit is just more accepeted there?

  25. #225
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    399

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Why we can't learn from Calagary where they accept LRT running through intersections is beyond me, I guess transit is just more accepeted there?
    Because if we were to "learn" from calgary, we'd be building an LRT system that does not have right-of-way, and stops at every single intersection for red lights all through downtown. MAJOR Mistake

  26. #226

    Default

    Many of my Calgarian friends that take LRT downtown hate the way it takes the LRT 15 minutes just to get out of downtown, and are quite envious of the way our tunnel operates. Sure it cost more, but the benefits for it add up significantly, and WE ALREADY HAVE PAID FOR THE TUNNEL. SHOULD WE NOT TRY TO MAXIMIZE ITS USE TO GET THE BEST BANG FOR OUR MONEY???

    Our SLRT didn't have to be perfect. But better would've been nice. Tunnel under/over university avenue, and over/under 51 avenue would've been a big step. Notice that the next further extension, they will tunnel under 23rd avenue... Because they've learned from this mistake, but some how these new planners designing WLRT are oblivious to the mistake we are learning from on SLRT.

    It's not just people in SUV that would benefit from these simple corrections I've said. LRT is frequently held up along the SLRT route waiting for the light at the next intersection to enter the right phase so that the next rail block is green.

  27. #227

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Many of my Calgarian friends that take LRT downtown hate the way it takes the LRT 15 minutes just to get out of downtown, and are quite envious of the way our tunnel operates.
    Its a bit like getting to ride in a Ferrari. Sure, its a wonderful thing. But whats more useful, having access to a car you can use anytime, or watching your friends in another neighborhood get to ride in something almost perfect while you wait decades? Calgary's ridership is fantastic because the LRT covers so much more of the city. That coverage is because Calgary was smart enough not to try and build a Ferrari that only serves a few people. Luckily, Edmonton has learned this lesson (finally). By making smart decisions that recognize traffic minimization perfection comes at an unacceptable build time and financial cost, more people in more neighborhoods will get to use LRT. Millwoods can get LRT in our lifetimes, in only a decade, something that wasn't going to happen the way it was being built.
    Last edited by moahunter; 27-01-2011 at 02:43 PM.

  28. #228

    Default

    riding in a Ferrari - wouldn't that be more akin to riding the latest toys from Bombarier or Siemens you are clamoring after, and who's asking for perfection? Come back to reality, dude. I just want a good transportation system, not a flawed one looking to save a nickle and penny at every turn and intersection.

    After Calgary built their downtown section, they realized they need grade separated at major intersections. Even their low floor LRT has grade separation in key areas. Our is missing that.

    Vancouver recently completed a new leg of their LRT - they realize the importance in grade separation.

    What we are trying to build here is a streetcar network but its being sold as a rapid transit system. A street car network is a glorified trolley bus., extra cost, no extra benefits.

  29. #229

    Default

    I'm amazed that you truly believe that. We are not building a streetcar network; we are building an exclusive ROW lrt with signal priority at every at grade intersections and grade separation where needed, which given recent comments by the Mayor will likely include more intersections than currently indicated. Calling it a glorified trolley bus, when the ROW design philosophy is very similar to sLRT is simply hyperbole, and, quite frankly, it sounds like sour grapes from someone who cannot accept others, including an overwhelming majority of city council (twice), didn't see the only true way.

  30. #230

    Default

    So are they going to grade separate along stony plain road or 102 avenue? What about 109st @ 104 avenue? The plans don't currently indicate any grade seperation for WLRT, except when crossing 170th street.

    This isn't sour grapes. This is not wanting to repeat the same mistakes by taking the cheap way out.

    I refer once again to the plans for Calgary's WLRT. Now look at Edmonton's WLRT plans. Now back to Calgary. See? This is what our LRT could be like.
    Last edited by Medwards; 27-01-2011 at 04:06 PM.

  31. #231
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,900

    Default

    I don't think +3 Billion is taking the cheap way out.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  32. #232

    Default

    I absolutely dread the day that the West LRT opens. Much as I like the idea of it coming by my home, with a stop only 800 meters away, the traffic nightmare on 142nd street and 149 street will truly be awful. I got stuck for half an hour on University Ave not long ago, yet it gets nothing like the traffic you see on those 2 streets. 149 street in particular serves as access to the NW industrial area for a lot of people. That area has no sidewalks and very poor bus service so driving is currently the only realistic option for many people. 142nd street will get busier as people who want to use 102 ave to get downtown will avoid Stoney Plain Road, opting to travel on 87th or 95th ave to 142 street instead. Planners have stated that they expect some drivers to opt to travel on 107 ave to get downtown, but to do that they have to cross the new LRT lines. A true CF in the making.

  33. #233

    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

  34. #234

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmcowboy11 View Post
    I don't think +3 Billion is taking the cheap way out.
    It's a gross mis-use of funds, it will be a +3 Billion dollar CF as referenced in the previous post.

  35. #235

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    We can certainly mitigate negative outcomes. I've outlined many of them, and suggested reasonable solutions. All I get in response from you is "LRT Planners know what they are doing, you must instill blind faith in them"

    I agree but WTF??? Is that not a Edmonton PRT trademark quote???

    Medwards, since when have you graduated with your PhD in Transit Planning? LOL

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Running lrt lines to spite car drivers is not how to plan lrt lines
    I agree

    But what do I know, I am not a Transportation Planner. LOL

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    What we are trying to build here is a streetcar network but its being sold as a rapid transit system. A street car network is a glorified trolley bus., extra cost, no extra benefits.
    I agree

    (I must be coming down with a serious fever)

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmcowboy11 View Post
    I don't think +3 Billion is taking the cheap way out.
    It's a gross mis-use of funds, it will be a +3 Billion dollar CF as referenced in the previous post.

    I agree

    ( I better lie down)

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Old Dawg,

    You in a special zone where you find me and PRT in agreement. Twilight zone.
    Twilight Zone X 2 in the same day

    Scary, very scary!
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 27-01-2011 at 11:18 PM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  36. #236

    Default

    in terms of calgary's transit being horrible downtown, it all has to do with the way you look at it. Yes they built it at grade and this means that it has to compete with automobile traffic at intersections. However the service downtown is not horrible because of that, it is because they have their priorities wrong. The lights are sequenced to give car traffic and transit equal flow. This has nothing to do with the fact that the system was built at grade. As I am now living in Calgary I am starting to use the C-Train to get to work, and I had the opportunity to catch the train during peak hours with crush loads. So this is some 400 people in a consist of three cars, yet the train was waiting at the lights to allow 10 or 15 cars through. How does that make sense, why would you delay a train at capacity of 400 people to let a few gas guzzlers through?

    I am proud of the design of the WLRT and SELRT in Edmonton. We are taking a stand, we will not tolerate having to wait twice to cross a street when we are walking because the rules of the roads are designed for...well you guessed it automobiles. The design takes people places, it does not cut through industrial wastes land like the North east line. It will give the city a warmer feeling than 6 lanes of asphalt ever will. I have no respect for automobile drivers, simply because they do not respect anything! They do not respect laws, pedestrians, cyclists, our air, or transit. So yeah I am proud that this LRT design is sticking it to them, so that we may for once have some convenience in our commute.
    Last edited by banisheddragon; 27-01-2011 at 10:21 PM.

  37. #237
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    566

    Default

    Only 3 car consists in crush hour? who designed that?

    Light sequencing tends to have a ripple effect over multiple blocks in every direction.

    Those are some pretty broad statements you make against drivers. In your own situation, transit may be the solution for you every time. Try and remember that transit isn't the best solution for everyone out there.

  38. #238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cured View Post
    Only 3 car consists in crush hour? who designed that?.
    Calgary is working to upgrade, but interstingly, even with 3 car consists, the ridership is way higher than Edmonton. They just got better bang for buck, built more track and let it fill up, then expanded. Not, "build for every theoretical potential thing that could delay a car for a minute or two".

    On the trains stopping there, its a bit weird, but it hasn't stopped people using LRT. It points out how absurd the comments have been on these threads about delays of a few minutes of one route versus another, its total nonesense, WLRT will be incredibly popular down SPR, it would be even if the trains did stop for intersections like in Calgary (which isn't the plan).

  39. #239
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,374

    Default

    While I'd prefer to have the LRT run through tunnels downtown, I do realize that Edmonton Transit hasn't build the cheapest LRT system, costs tend to be higher then similar tunnel or at grade systems. And there is nothing that is stopping a future LRT extension under Jasper to about 124th street.

    But as for Meadowlark Road or 156th street I'm sort of "meh" about this, my other more niggling problem is Misericordia and West Edmonton Mall stops, couldn't we have a stop on the SE corner of the WEM lot to service both, they plan to build a bridge over 170th Street, have a pedestrian crosswalk on that bridge as well. The counter argument is both WEM and the hospital have a lot of people working or visiting both.

  40. #240

    Default

    Look the lrt will be going over 170st. That is a major intersection. Are university Ave 142st and 149st of the same calaber. No. If turning left is an issue than change your route so you don't turn left at those interestions.

    There are options. Again this is change and people fear change pure and simple.
    "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. #241
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    While I'd prefer to have the LRT run through tunnels downtown, I do realize that Edmonton Transit hasn't build the cheapest LRT system, costs tend to be higher then similar tunnel or at grade systems. And there is nothing that is stopping a future LRT extension under Jasper to about 124th street.

    But as for Meadowlark Road or 156th street I'm sort of "meh" about this, my other more niggling problem is Misericordia and West Edmonton Mall stops, couldn't we have a stop on the SE corner of the WEM lot to service both, they plan to build a bridge over 170th Street, have a pedestrian crosswalk on that bridge as well. The counter argument is both WEM and the hospital have a lot of people working or visiting both.
    I was thinking the same. Perhaps have a stop above the road with west exit to the Mall and East Exit to Misericordia and Meadowlark Village. The city would have to relocate the transit stop to that parking lot. Perhaps build the next west stop at the hotel or nearer the mall instead of 182 street.

  42. #242

    Default

    Calgary's wLRT is much more grade separated than the rest of their system, which seems to have served them fairly well. For example, their neLRT line runs at grade across just about all intersections outside of downtown, which includes numerous intersections since half its length is at grade on 36st between Memorial and McKnight

  43. #243
    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
    Only 3 car consists in crush hour? who designed that?.
    Calgary is working to upgrade, but interstingly, even with 3 car consists, the ridership is way higher than Edmonton. They just got better bang for buck, built more track and let it fill up, then expanded. Not, "build for every theoretical potential thing that could delay a car for a minute or two".
    Ridership is way higher only when you look at the total number - a rather selective comparrison. When you look at ridership per km numbers we end up rather close. Also, you can factor in the downtown free zone in Calgary which adds roughly 25,000 riders per weekday. On top of that there is more than double the workforce in their downtown core. Parking rates are also something to look at when comparing the two systems.

    Calgary is expanding their downtown stations to allow for 4 car consists because that is the only way left for them to add more capacity on the existing lines. Fortunately for them, their city blocks are long enough to permit this because ours won't be.

  44. #244
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    31,020

    Default

    Lack of cash forces city to scale back LRT plans
    EDMONTON — The plan to finish Edmonton’s west-to-southeast LRT line by 2016 appears dead after a committee voted Tuesday to first focus on putting tracks only from downtown to Whitemud Drive.

    While the entire 27-kilometre route has been approved, there isn’t enough money to build it all at once because the city needs help from the other levels of government, Coun. Amarjeet Sohi said.

    “The original timeline to complete the entire network by 2016 was based on the assumption that the federal government would show a strong commitment to Edmonton because of Expo (2017),” he said.

    “Now that Expo is off the table … we have to be more practical. To be practical means to build the southeast-to-west line in stages.”

    The initial leg must go to at least 75th Street and Whitemud because that’s the only practical site for a facility to maintain the new low-floor LRT cars that will run on the line, he said.

    The total system has an estimated price tag of $3.2 billion. The first part could probably be built for about $1 billion, including a scaled-down maintenance yard, Sohi said.
    Read more: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...#ixzz1DQimDEom

    I agree...keep building what we can.
    “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

  45. #245
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Makes sense to me too. It will also allow us to re-evaluate and tweak the west line and the rest of the downtown connector once we see how the southeast line works.

  46. #246
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,855

    Default

    I think the City still has to keep the vision of LRT. The next priority for LRT once the downtown-Whitemud leg is built should be the west leg from downtown to 156 Street.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  47. #247

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    Makes sense to me too. It will also allow us to re-evaluate and tweak the west line and the rest of the downtown connector once we see how the southeast line works.
    They will learn a bit from this line, so yes, that's a good point. Only thing is though, doing it in "bits" will likely cost more in the long run than puting the whole thing out to competitive tender today (as big project will attract more international bidders).

  48. #248
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    How big does a project have to be to get out of town interest? The section that will be done first is still estimated at a billion dollars. Even cutting out the rolling stock from the contract, and assuming that the competitive bid gets a price less than the budget it's still a $600m infrastructure project. I don't think the Henday P3s had problems attracting competitive bids, and they were in that range.

    The whitemud to millwoods downtown connector sections may be a little small, so it would be a good idea to get those priced as an option on the original contract, so if we find money for one or both of those bits before construction is finished on the first part we can excercise the option and get the goood price. Same thing for the LRVs: There should be an option to add all the LRVs needed to do the whole thing.

  49. #249

    Default

    ^I don't know, I'm not sure how much the city will "cut it up". My fear is they will do little chunks a a time like the current lines, with most of the work going to local companies who won't undercut each other (sort of a gravey train, which I think is a big part of why our LRT is so horribly expensive).

  50. #250
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,855

    Default

    LRT Planning Studies Win Award of Excellence

    February 16, 2011

    The City of Edmonton is thrilled to accept an Award of Excellence from the Consulting Engineers of Alberta (CEA) for the West and Southeast LRT corridor selection studies.

    http://www.edmonton.ca/city_governme...win-award.aspx
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  51. #251
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,374

    Default

    Save the awards until its open. Whats next an Award of Excellence for Typing, Dart Throwing and Surfing?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSPCww0JDUQ

  52. #252

    Default

    Sell the award and use the money to actually build something...
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  53. #253

    Default

    Use the award as leverage as to why it should get funding.... you guys are far from witty
    "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

  54. #254

    Default

    Funny Medwards plan didn't win the award

  55. #255
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,855

    Default

    The award, plus the LRT numbers for 2010 (93,000), provide a strong business case for LRT funding.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  56. #256

    Default

    lets not get too carried away about the award. It's not like it was judged against any other projects of similar size or scale, and was limited to Alberta.

    Ya... wooo...

  57. #257

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Cat View Post
    LRT Planning Studies Win Award of Excellence

    February 16, 2011

    The City of Edmonton is thrilled to accept an Award of Excellence from the Consulting Engineers of Alberta (CEA) for the West and Southeast LRT corridor selection studies.

    http://www.edmonton.ca/city_governme...win-award.aspx
    The City won nothing. CH2M Hill received the award for their study.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  58. #258
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,374

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Use the award as leverage as to why it should get funding.... you guys are far from witty
    If we weren't paying billions of dollars in transfer payments going to primarily Quebec we wouldn't need federal funding. Personally I think equalization payments should be eliminated.

    Getting back on topic here, the city has done how many west LRT plans? Two I can remember in the past 5 years, there probably were others in the past 20 years that I can't remember. They all can't be the best.

  59. #259

    Default

    Derailing the thread then turning around and saying "but lets not get off topic" doesn't change the fact that you went off topic

    Lets not kid ourself.. stopping transfer payments wouldn't magically cure all our ills.
    "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

  60. #260

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    Getting back on topic here, the city has done how many west LRT plans? Two I can remember in the past 5 years, there probably were others in the past 20 years that I can't remember. They all can't be the best.
    Didn't you know all those plans are invalid because we have this new fancy plan that won a local award that means diddly-squat?

  61. #261
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,374

    Default

    Thats exactly my point Medwards. Oooo the latest plan won an award, ooo lets rush out and pat ourselves on the back, I'd much rather see the LRT built then giving awards for the now (yet again) delayed west line.

    They city did studies for the LRT to run on 87th Ave, then published the plan, approved it, then it was delayed a year or two, then rejected, now yet another plan running along Stony Plain Road, this is such a great award winning, plan that its been delayed for how long?

    Yes money is an issue, but more and more it looks like it should be a P3 funded over 20/30 years, not a piecemeal approach that will be delayed yet more times in the future.

  62. #262

    Default

    Just a reminder for some who still have the steer davies gleave wool over their eyes:

    http://www2.canada.com/edmontonjourn...8-d760ac2ef065

    Some people here think we need some sort of european fashioned LRT where they are forced to intersect and use the same streets. Others think we should ignore all the previous planning work done, because it doesn't use the latest and shiniest type of LRT cars... As if to say that if we dont, we wont have any success, which is incredulously to say the least, especially comparing our current LRT network to others in passengers per mile, We have a very successful system. Why fix something that isn't broke?

    In Edmonton - we have many ROWs set aside for RAPID transit. We dont need to tie up our streets with some slow street car with a hell-of-a-big cost with little to no gain over the BRT and express bus network we have in the west end...

    I repeat - Little to no improvement over the bus network we have now. Timings from WEM to downtown for this current LRT plan is the EXACT same as timing for the 100 express bus. Whattttttt? Why bother building a slow train?


    "
    IanO
    Tue, May 6, 08 at 06:11 PM
    .....i think we all know that 87avenue is the "best" route given the objectives and costs. We have delayed LRT expansion in our city for far too long and done far too many studies. It is time we recognize a good route and deal with the concessions that need to be made to make it happen."
    Last edited by Medwards; 18-02-2011 at 12:56 PM.

  63. #263
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Westmount
    Posts
    3,261

    Default

    EJ:

    Tunnel would decrease traffic on Stony Plain Rd.
    By Gordon Kent, edmontonjournal.com March 11, 2011 7:01 PM

    EDMONTON - The push to keep traffic flowing normally along Stony Plain Road once the LRT opens could require a 14-block, $300-million tunnel, a new report says.

    Major intersections on the route from Lewis Estates to Mill Woods are already at capacity during parts of the rush hour, and the problem will only become worse as Edmonton grows, says a city report released Friday.

    The most cost-effective ways to handle congestion are through moves such as increased public transit and carpooling, with road widening reserved for the biggest truck corridors, it says.

    However, putting the LRT tracks over or under parts of the 27-kilometre line would allow at least a half-dozen junctions along the route to keep operating as they do today.

    This approach could include spending $300 million to tunnel under Stony Plain Road from 142nd Street to 156th Street, or half that amount to put tracks below the road as far west as 149th Street, the report indicates.

  64. #264
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,855

    Default

    I think I'd be in favour of the tunnel along Stony Plain Road, particularly from 142 to 156 Street. Intersections like 142 Street, 149 Street and 156 Street could be extremely congested.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  65. #265

    Default

    I wouldn't just to save a couple of minutes of commute time. How would people in Grovenor access the train? Or are you suggesting underground stations as well? That means, a de-facto homeless shelter in the middle of the neighborhood. Areas like Jasper Place already have enough problems without an underground spot for transients to hang out in. This won't revitalize, but rather, will pull the neighborhoods down (just like we see at other LRT locations in suburbs with underground tunnels - e.g. Coloseium).

  66. #266

    Default

    The cost for this streetcar keeps going up. I thought this low floor line was supposed to intregrate well with the existing neighborhood framework? Now we are add 14-21 blocks of tunnel?

    At what point do we just say -- hey -- this routing has some major fundamental issues -- perhaps it's time to rethink this? Back to the drawing board.

  67. #267
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    566

    Default

    No kidding. They're going to keep adding so many tack on items to this route to in order to make it workable that at some point someone will have to swallow their pride and realize there was a better cheaper option to start with.

  68. #268

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    I wouldn't just to save a couple of minutes of commute time. How would people in Grovenor access the train? Or are you suggesting underground stations as well? That means, a de-facto homeless shelter in the middle of the neighborhood. Areas like Jasper Place already have enough problems without an underground spot for transients to hang out in. This won't revitalize, but rather, will pull the neighborhoods down (just like we see at other LRT locations in suburbs with underground tunnels - e.g. Coloseium).
    defacto homeless shelters? wow. None of the stations downtown are 'defacto homeless shelters'. You certainly don't see homeless people just loitering in the pedway or tunnels downtown. Coliseum station certain has some interesting characters floating around the transit center, but no more or less than Jasper Place Transit center or WEM Transit center, or Kingsway transit center (all with out this 'underground tunnel' you seem so fearful of)
    Or is what your really saying is that if we built coliseum without the 'underground' tunnels, and instead, built it more like southgate with the above ground tunnels - that this would cure what ever perceived homeless problem you think there is there?
    Or maybe you are just calling anyone who in your mind looks a little bit shady as homeless.
    Underground train networks and stations have been around since the beginning of last century in cities around the world. In the many train networks I've been to, I rarely see homeless people in them. Coliseum station included. There's been shares of shady characters -- but that happens anywhere. Outside, inside, downtown, uptown. Reality of the world we live in.

    In the end - this route doesn't make sense - in any shape or fashion. BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARDS ETS!!!
    Last edited by Medwards; 12-03-2011 at 09:03 AM.

  69. #269
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,900

    Default

    Hey great idea, let's bring everything right back to square one and start fresh with plans for the LRT. There are too many people that don't want it going through their neighborhood so lets start over.
    Actually better yet, build the SELRT, build the downtown section, build the extention out to St.Albert, build the extensions out to Ellerslie and Gorman and finally since everyone has so many issues and will always have issues with LRT to the West, I say terminate the downtown connector at 124 st and forget about the west end. I've gotten really tired of everyone crying the blues about Stony Plain Road and commuter traffic, etc... Let's make everyone on the west end happy and expand the roads to accomodate more traffic and forget about LRT there. LRT is good for the rest of the city but the west end can go without it. There I'm done my Rant!
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  70. #270

  71. #271

    Default

    there is no point to be going ahead with this tunnel section, leave it at grade, with trains carrying 100-300 people every 15 minutes, this will more than decrease automobile traffic. Cars are not sustainable and won't be around forever, other than those for remote locations, and long distances. Leave it at grade with a ROW, save the money.

  72. #272
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,855

    Default

    While the tunnel is nice, I'd like to see what numbers the LRT would take away.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  73. #273

    Default

    ^ exactly... build it at grade.. lets start giving service priority to those who live IN edmonton... not ones on the edges or AROUND it.
    "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

  74. #274

    Default

    Measure twice cut once

  75. #275

    Default

    Lets look at parts of this article actually say....

    The most cost-effective ways to handle congestion are through moves such as increased public transit and carpooling, with road widening reserved for the biggest truck corridors, it says.

    The low-floor, streetcar-style LRT will run along the road, leaving one driving lane in each direction on parts of the route. Intersections on 107th Avenue at 142nd Street and 149th Street will be improved to help carry the displaced traffic.
    “I don’t know how we can go underneath those intersections and have stations at those intersections,” he said.
    “The worst thing we could do with those neighbourhoods is send LRT through them and not give them access to it.”
    "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

  76. #276

    Default

    My question become... if the LRT runs at grade through intersections, does the volume of people able to move through that interestion increase? I'm sure you will fine the answer is yes..

    This is about peoples fear that the car won't be king of the road.
    "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

  77. #277

    Default

    No this is building a few billion dollar streetcar but sold as a rapid transit system that doesn't offer any advantage over a much cheaper to build express/prioritized bus route

  78. #278

    Default

    ^ In your opinion... and to that effect why build any LRT at all... Just make Rapid Bus with it's own lanes and make it run through a underground tunnel through the core......

    or better yet.. just build PRT.
    "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. #279

    Default

    ^ many cities around the world are doing just that... European cities too! (minus the PRT part.)

    I'd be more for building WLRT if it actually provided a time savings for the majority of west enders over driving or taking the bus. It does neither. The 87th avenue alignment provided a short cut for west enders going to uofa and downtown, by forming a route that isn't available to the car driving public. It also doesn't interfer (as much) with the car driving public that still needs to get places where LRT wont or will never service.

  80. #280

    Default

    ^I'm sorry but you just create information to suit your needs.

    Show us where it DOESN'T provide us a time savings over taking the bus or car. Express bus service can meet the needs of the west that have to get to the U of A.

    Again we cannon continue to make getting people from the outer rim of our city into the core and back out the top priority. Our LRT has to be more than a commuter train, for many reasons.
    "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. #281

    Default

    87th avenue serve large majority of the west end. A BRT would be better suited for Stony Plain Road.

  82. #282
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,712

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Measure twice cut once
    We did. 87th was the first measurement, and it was rejected. Stony Plain is the 2nd, and it was approved.

    Just because you don't agree with the decision doesn't mean it's wrong.

  83. #283
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,855

    Default

    I think BRT would be a great intermediate step for the West LRT, and it would provide an idea of LRT ridership, should it be built.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  84. #284

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ander View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Measure twice cut once
    We did. 87th was the first measurement, and it was rejected. Stony Plain is the 2nd, and it was approved.

    Just because you don't agree with the decision doesn't mean it's wrong.
    and just because they made a decision, doesn't mean it was the right one...

    (and in reality... 87th avenue was about the 3rd or 4th measure...Stony Plain Road/107th avenue routing was really the first original measure)

  85. #285

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    No this is building a few billion dollar streetcar but sold as a rapid transit system that doesn't offer any advantage over a much cheaper to build express/prioritized bus route
    or any advantage of the trolley system it tries to replace. Funny we could not spend $100m to get 38 modern low floor trolleys but billions on the same thing with the rubber tires taken off the rims.




    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 12-03-2011 at 06:20 PM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  86. #286

    Default

    for 300 million, they should probably save that money for more LRT. that could be a big portion of the 87th avenue route.

  87. #287
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,855

    Default

    Is there any way that priority signals and bus lanes could be introduced along 104 Avenue? If the downtown connector is built to Grant MacEwan, then there could be an express bus that starts out at 100 Street/Jasper, turning right at 105 Street and heading west on 104 Avenue.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  88. #288
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,604

    Default

    I'm surprised at the $40 million in extra construction costs for elevating over 178 Street as opposed to crossing it at grade. We're talking at most of 300 metres of additional elevated track (maybe as little as 200 meters) added to the 1.5 kilometers of already elevated track between 177 Street and 164 Street. And the latter section requires a wider bridge along a significant section of its length to accommodate the proposed above grade WEM and Misericordia Stations.

    Transportation's report also ignores the extra operating costs of crossing the 178 Street intersection at grade (e.g. signaling, accidents, service disruptions) compared to elevating over it. These extra operating costs are incurred year after year, compared to the one-time extra construction costs.

  89. #289

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JamesL View Post
    EJ:

    Tunnel would decrease traffic on Stony Plain Rd.
    By Gordon Kent, edmontonjournal.com March 11, 2011 7:01 PM

    EDMONTON - The push to keep traffic flowing normally along Stony Plain Road once the LRT opens could require a 14-block, $300-million tunnel, a new report says.

    Major intersections on the route from Lewis Estates to Mill Woods are already at capacity during parts of the rush hour, and the problem will only become worse as Edmonton grows, says a city report released Friday.

    The most cost-effective ways to handle congestion are through moves such as increased public transit and carpooling, with road widening reserved for the biggest truck corridors, it says.

    However, putting the LRT tracks over or under parts of the 27-kilometre line would allow at least a half-dozen junctions along the route to keep operating as they do today.

    This approach could include spending $300 million to tunnel under Stony Plain Road from 142nd Street to 156th Street, or half that amount to put tracks below the road as far west as 149th Street, the report indicates.

    The only intersections that would REQUIRE a grade seperation are 170st and Anthony Henday drive.

    Every other major roadway can use grade level crossings. The intersections at 51Ave, Whitemud, and 34Ave continue to function just fine, with short additional delays.

    University Ave has ALWAYS been a bottleneck southbound due to limited flow along 114st and a crush of autos trying to get to Fox Drive and Whitemud. I'd say its no worse now than it was 10 years ago. The difference is there is less auto traffic now balanced by the lrt intersection. In any case, this intersection should have been free flowing before LRT even went to Health Sciences...


    A 300mil tunnel under Stony Plain road is nothing more than a joke to me. The entire swath from 142st to 163st is little more than run down empty stores, empty parking lots, pawn shops, payday loan locations, and minimal residential density. Spending a third of a billion EXTRA to just tunnel under that mess is laughable. It NEEDS to all be bulldozed as part of the renewal when the WLRT goes thru.
    Last edited by blainehamilton; 14-03-2011 at 01:50 PM.

  90. #290
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,712

    Default

    it would probably cost less than $300M to expropriate and demolish a route through the area than it would to build that ridiculous tunnel.

    was that Liebovici? or Sloan?

  91. #291

    Default

    ^ I would argue it doesn't need to be bulldozed either. Let it(the area) rejuvenate on its own, let more traffic flow to 107 ave and just build the system at grade as designed.
    "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

  92. #292
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,712

    Default

    Oh I completely agree. I just used that as an example to show how ridiculous the idea of tunnelling under SPR is.

  93. #293

    Default

    I think the report was done to show just that... Which councilor said that this option needs to be seriously considered?
    "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

  94. #294
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,604

    Default

    This is further to my post #288 above on the need to elevate over 178 Street.

    Transportation's report also fails to include costs that - while external to the City - will nonetheless be borne by everyone using this major intersection. This includes the extra costs of getting stuck in traffic (including air pollution from idling vehicles), and the likelihood of more traffic collisions. According to the most recent traffic reports, 36,200 vehicles per day use 178 Street to cross 87 Avenue. This is over twice the 17,800 vehicles per day crossing 51 Avenue that is causing such problems on the South LRT line. Source: http://www.edmonton.ca/transportatio...n-reports.aspx

    We need to learn from - not repeat - past mistakes.

  95. #295

    Default

    ^ I don't get your post...they have decided to elevate the section over 178st

  96. #296

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by banisheddragon View Post
    there is no point to be going ahead with this tunnel section, leave it at grade, with trains carrying 100-300 people every 15 minutes, this will more than decrease automobile traffic. Cars are not sustainable and won't be around forever, other than those for remote locations, and long distances. Leave it at grade with a ROW, save the money.
    Wishful thinking. Chances are most of the new train riders in the west will be those who are currently bussing it. And most automobile drivers will continue to take their automobiles.

    There may be 20% less cars on the road, but the road will lose 50% of it's driving lanes. Brilliant. The only way to do this Stony Plain Road route without creating more congestion is to level lots of businesses, but that doesn't even appear to be on the table.

    They shoulda stuck with the 87th ave route.

  97. #297

    Default

    the 87th route was defunct and would have only run through an already developed detached housing residential area of town, this neighbourhood is also designed in the suburbia style with dead-end cul-de-sacs, the 87th route would have only serviced have 4 new destinations - WEM, misericordia hospital, meadowlark mall, the valley zoo. The 87th ave route would have been quick but wouldn't have provided access to anything!

    the chosen routing goes through a mixed use area that is need of redevelopment aka stony plain rd, why not provide some foot traffic and customers to help jump start the area aka new & clean sidewalks and LRT! The existing neighbourhoods that the LRT route goes through are built with the proper grid urban design, so people can actually get where they need to quickly.

    the chosen route also serves the WEM, misericordia hospital, meadowlark mall, jasper transit center, stony plain road, the RAM, 124 st, oliver, grant mac & norquest college, a new arena & downtown. This routing serves an additional 8 destinations. Let me see which route I would choose... At more than 10 km, you could expect this route to have half of our current lines ridership so 50,000 patrons per day. 50,000 people going down stony plain road displaces alot of cars along this route, I think we will be fine.

  98. #298

    Default

    Sorry, but due to design limitations, this route your clamouring on about won't have near the speed nor capacity as our current LRT design. You won't be seeing ridership as high as our current line. Our current line is built more like a heavyrail (subway) design, which is meant for speed and capacity. What is being proposed to be built now is a modern street car. It will have to fight traffic congestion, and without barriers, it will have to fight with a lot of stupid drivers all over the place.
    It would be better if we designed a street car system where appropriate, and called it that, and continued to design our rapid transit network between the bigger nodes.

  99. #299
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    369

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    This is further to my post #288 above on the need to elevate over 178 Street.

    Transportation's report also fails to include costs that - while external to the City - will nonetheless be borne by everyone using this major intersection. This includes the extra costs of getting stuck in traffic (including air pollution from idling vehicles), and the likelihood of more traffic collisions. According to the most recent traffic reports, 36,200 vehicles per day use 178 Street to cross 87 Avenue. This is over twice the 17,800 vehicles per day crossing 51 Avenue that is causing such problems on the South LRT line. Source: http://www.edmonton.ca/transportatio...n-reports.aspx

    We need to learn from - not repeat - past mistakes.
    ...and how much do you know about traffic engineering and signal control??. I have driven by 51 Avenue on many, many occasions since last year and thing move just fine now. Yes things did not work very well when the line opened. A lot of work went into changing the signal operation including how the LRT pre-empts the traffic signals. 51 Ave - 111 Street still uses pre-emption which is VERY disruptive to traffic especially the cross traffic and left turns. Pre-emption is what heavy rail uses when next to a roadway traffic signal.

    The West/SE line will have a more integrated signal/LRT control system with signal priority for the LRT. This will allow for more precision and more efficient operation between the LRT signals and traffic signals.

    Furthermore, 178 Street still carries a fair bit of traffic because of the yet to be finished interchanges along Anthony Henday, particularly the VERY congestion intersection at Stony Plain Road. I would suspect there will be a very noticeable drop in traffic on 178 Street when Henday is finished.

    This city must STOP worrying so much about car traffic and give the required priority to transit.

  100. #300
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,604

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by knowitall View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    This is further to my post #288 above on the need to elevate over 178 Street.

    Transportation's report also fails to include costs that - while external to the City - will nonetheless be borne by everyone using this major intersection. This includes the extra costs of getting stuck in traffic (including air pollution from idling vehicles), and the likelihood of more traffic collisions. According to the most recent traffic reports, 36,200 vehicles per day use 178 Street to cross 87 Avenue. This is over twice the 17,800 vehicles per day crossing 51 Avenue that is causing such problems on the South LRT line. Source: http://www.edmonton.ca/transportatio...n-reports.aspx

    We need to learn from - not repeat - past mistakes.
    ...and how much do you know about traffic engineering and signal control??. I have driven by 51 Avenue on many, many occasions since last year and thing move just fine now. Yes things did not work very well when the line opened. A lot of work went into changing the signal operation including how the LRT pre-empts the traffic signals. 51 Ave - 111 Street still uses pre-emption which is VERY disruptive to traffic especially the cross traffic and left turns. Pre-emption is what heavy rail uses when next to a roadway traffic signal.

    The West/SE line will have a more integrated signal/LRT control system with signal priority for the LRT. This will allow for more precision and more efficient operation between the LRT signals and traffic signals.

    Furthermore, 178 Street still carries a fair bit of traffic because of the yet to be finished interchanges along Anthony Henday, particularly the VERY congestion intersection at Stony Plain Road. I would suspect there will be a very noticeable drop in traffic on 178 Street when Henday is finished.

    This city must STOP worrying so much about car traffic and give the required priority to transit.
    In reply to your first question, obviously a lot more than you.

Page 3 of 25 FirstFirst 123456713 ... 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
  •