Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 401 to 487 of 487

Thread: West LRT | Downtown to Lewis Estates | Discussion about other possible routes

  1. #401
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,538

    Default

    I like the streetcar idea for Fort Edmonton-Valley Zoo and Hawrelak Park. That would connect three areas that could be covered in one outing, rather than three separate ones.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  2. #402
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,688

    Default

    The streetcar trolley would be nice from the Fort to the zoo, but what I think would be soooo cool to see (although I know it would be problematic at best) is if they could have the steam locomotive that is at the fort to travel through the valley to the other destinations. Now that would be a major tourist attraction.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  3. #403

    Default

    The train would be very cool but 1) you'd need much heavier bridges. 2) you'd need more trains 3) You'd need some way for it to turn around at the ends.

    I think the streetcar is much more do-able.

  4. #404
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,688

    Default

    1) Well the bridges for sure you would need a good one, but just one is all you would need. 2) no you wouldn't need more trains because if you were travelling from Fort Edm to the zoo to maybe Hawrelak this would be a tourist attraction that wouldn't require a lot of frequency. 3) the turn around exists at the fort already and it would just be a matter of building a loop at the zoo.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  5. #405

    Default

    I think that the people areound the zoo would probably complain about the noise of a steam train as opposed to a street car. An advage to the streetcar is that you could extend it to Victoria park and then down to Rossdale. Much more difficult to do that with a steam train.

  6. #406

    Default

    Seriously, how many people go to Fort Edmonton, the zoo, and Harwerlak park on one day? Any one of those is at least a half day if not a full day for average family, a train simply connecting then makes no sense. None of these places are difficult to get to right now by bus or car.

  7. #407

    Default

    The WLRT makes the most sense going on this route (87th). The added station in the river valley for the zoo, hawrylak park, and even fort edmonton is just an added bonus. Turn off your blinders Mike, it's not a train for simply connecting these amenities.

  8. #408

    Default

    ^I'm commenting on the idea of a tourist steam train or tram conneting the three parks. I accept that 87 ave was a reasonable route for LRT, just as now SPR is. Sure if a route goes past a recreational facility it should stop there (like Muttart station), I think the 87 plan didn't as it would have added a lot of cost and environmental impact (simpler and cheaper to have a free zoo shuttle from the first station).
    Last edited by moahunter; 13-11-2011 at 02:05 PM.

  9. #409

    Default

    There was a story in the Journal recently about developing the area around Victoria Park. Add that to the development of Rossdale and then add the Zoo and the Fort into the mix and you could have a good tourist line streetcar. Tying it into an LRT line at the zoo would make it possible to take the streetcar one way and the faster trip back via LRT. Or vice-versa. Also, with the streetcar running past Hawrelak Park ( I still think of it as Mayfair) there may be more events held in the ampitheatre.

    Just doing a rough map and comparing the length of the run I estimate it would be about a one hour trip one way from Rossdale to the Fort.

    Tie it all together with LRT at the Zoo and you could have numerous fuctions running in the valley at once. Dare to dream. And if you dream, dream big!

  10. #410
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,518

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Seriously, how many people go to Fort Edmonton, the zoo, and Harwerlak park on one day? Any one of those is at least a half day if not a full day for average family, a train simply connecting then makes no sense. None of these places are difficult to get to right now by bus or car.
    Agreed. And, as Glenco points out, the Zoo is too far south of 87 Avenue.

    A modest neighbourhood underground LRT station should be located near the 142 Street traffic circle where it would benefit nearby residents and facilitate transfers to buses along 142 Street and those going down Buena Vista Road to the Zoo.

  11. #411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Glenco View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Running the LRT down the Whitemud/Fox Drive or McKinnon Ravine is pretty much a non-starter. Both of them have long runs with no people around them. The 87th ave alignment has the river crossing but with the possibility of a station by the zoo for access to the valley, much like the proposed Muttart station on the SE line.
    Check the map. 87ave is about ten blocks from the zoo. What use would it be?
    10 blocks from the Zoo and what 100 m above it... the zoo is at the bottom of the river valley... The LRT will be at the top.

    Run a Zoo bus from JP transit center to the zoo.. done and done.
    "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

  12. #412

    Default

    No one goes down Buena Vista that doesn't live there. Those guys are all rich and they live down there because it's away from the plebs.

    It would make more sense using the whitemud route i've suggested in the past because the cost savings would be substantial, you can make a faster train, and it'd be more beneficial to people actually using it.

    Why would you go from JP to the zoo?

    I could see west ed to the zoo but not jp.

  13. #413

    Default

    The 87th ave WLRT alignment had a the line enter a portal and emerge above ground west of 142 st.

    If nobody who doesn't live in the area goes down Buena Vista Road, how do people drive to the zoo and Laurier Park?

    http://g.co/maps/chfqw

  14. #414

    Default

    Here's how I vision the west end LRT working out with the rest of the system.. This is the build out plan over 30 years



    *Note that the thick lines use our current LRT system, and the thin lines would be low floor lrt/urban lrt

    If you would like to see how I would phase it out - see the original thread here: http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum...ad.php?t=19771

  15. #415

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    The 87th ave WLRT alignment had a the line enter a portal and emerge above ground west of 142 st.

    If nobody who doesn't live in the area goes down Buena Vista Road, how do people drive to the zoo and Laurier Park?

    http://g.co/maps/chfqw
    Barely anyone goes to the zoo except for field trips and you have to drive to get there.

    I just don't know where they could put it. Buena Vista goes quite out of the way and all of the property in the way there is crazy expensive. Katz lives over there. Digging underground on a declining surface is a completely crazy feat of engineering when you're trying not to interupt the foundations of multimillion dollar homes.

    It would be way cheaper just to use a natural trail like Mackinnon or Whitemud. 87th to 87th would be faster, but I just don't see how it could happen.

    What about Mackinnon to the University? Come out by Groat, cross up to Sask drive? Not that far out of the way, but then again, it'd still be easier to just go to Grandin and hop the train to the uni.

  16. #416

    Default

    I'd make a few changes, just tweaks actually.

    1 - Have your blue and green lines meet at Blatchford Park instead of NAIT. Better coverage of the airport lands.

    2 - Run the Blue line along 104 ave from 109 st to 121 st and then north.

    3 - Have the Purple line turn south on 178 st and do the Collingwood portion of your route instead of the Green line

    4 - Keep the green line heading west to Lewis Estates for eventual extension to Stoney Plain/Spruce Grove

    Other than that, just add a zoo station to the Green line

  17. #417

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by armin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    The 87th ave WLRT alignment had a the line enter a portal and emerge above ground west of 142 st.

    If nobody who doesn't live in the area goes down Buena Vista Road, how do people drive to the zoo and Laurier Park?

    http://g.co/maps/chfqw
    Barely anyone goes to the zoo except for field trips and you have to drive to get there.

    I just don't know where they could put it. Buena Vista goes quite out of the way and all of the property in the way there is crazy expensive. Katz lives over there. Digging underground on a declining surface is a completely crazy feat of engineering when you're trying not to interupt the foundations of multimillion dollar homes.

    It would be way cheaper just to use a natural trail like Mackinnon or Whitemud. 87th to 87th would be faster, but I just don't see how it could happen.

    What about Mackinnon to the University? Come out by Groat, cross up to Sask drive? Not that far out of the way, but then again, it'd still be easier to just go to Grandin and hop the train to the uni.
    Running an LRT line down MacKinnon Ravine is a total non-starter. There's no way that the city would go for that. You think that people are complaining about some of the suggested routes now? Try running a line through a park.

    Obviously the city engineers didn't think that the 87th ave line was so difficult since they recommended that routing before the switch to low floor LRT was mandated. It was NIMBYism that killed the 87th ave line, not engineering difficulties.

  18. #418

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by armin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    The 87th ave WLRT alignment had a the line enter a portal and emerge above ground west of 142 st.

    If nobody who doesn't live in the area goes down Buena Vista Road, how do people drive to the zoo and Laurier Park?

    http://g.co/maps/chfqw
    Barely anyone goes to the zoo except for field trips and you have to drive to get there.

    I just don't know where they could put it. Buena Vista goes quite out of the way and all of the property in the way there is crazy expensive. Katz lives over there. Digging underground on a declining surface is a completely crazy feat of engineering when you're trying not to interupt the foundations of multimillion dollar homes.

    It would be way cheaper just to use a natural trail like Mackinnon or Whitemud. 87th to 87th would be faster, but I just don't see how it could happen.

    What about Mackinnon to the University? Come out by Groat, cross up to Sask drive? Not that far out of the way, but then again, it'd still be easier to just go to Grandin and hop the train to the uni.

    You may not see it, but up until Mandel got his way, 87th to University ave is the way the Transportation wanted and recommended... There's some very detailed studies that were mothballed... you can still find copies of these plans in the downtown library reference section...

  19. #419

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    I'd make a few changes, just tweaks actually.

    1 - Have your blue and green lines meet at Blatchford Park instead of NAIT. Better coverage of the airport lands.

    2 - Run the Blue line along 104 ave from 109 st to 121 st and then north.

    3 - Have the Purple line turn south on 178 st and do the Collingwood portion of your route instead of the Green line

    4 - Keep the green line heading west to Lewis Estates for eventual extension to Stoney Plain/Spruce Grove

    Other than that, just add a zoo station to the Green line
    1) Hard to draw much more detail with out a lot more effort - but the NAIT station is actually on the airport lands

    2) The idea behind the blue line was meant to connect all four major schools, UOFA, GMCC, NORQUEST and NAIT...

    3) & 4) This would be okay... not going to remake the map for it, but this would really tie in the west end together...

  20. #420

    Default

    The Blue line could also extend east along 118 ave, giving better access to NAIT. The #8 bus shows that there's a lot of demand along that route. You could transfer at NAIT/Blatchford or Coliseum for access to downtown or take one of the bus routes along 95 or 97 st. It would act more as a collector route in this area.

  21. #421
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,425

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Running an LRT line down MacKinnon Ravine is a total non-starter. There's no way that the city would go for that. You think that people are complaining about some of the suggested routes now? Try running a line through a park.
    I don't know. That ravine has already been significantly disturbed from its natural state. Dig a trench where the trail is now, install a surface level "tunnel" and use the tunnel roof as the trail. The bottom of the tunnel would be no more than 4 m below grade and the tunnel roof will only need to hold the weight of pedestrians, cyclists and the odd park maintenance truck, so it could be much lighter and cheaper to build than a typical LRT tunnel. At the bottom of the ravine, continue along River Valley Road and then turn into the existing tunnel towards Grandin Station to connect WLRT with NLRT.

  22. #422

    Default

    ^ It would be better to dig a tunnel/trench through a populated area, rather than putting the train down in the ravine where it will go 40 blocks without a station... building a station in the ravine and expecting people from the area will walk to it is just plain silly.

  23. #423
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,518

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by armin View Post
    I just don't know where they could put it. Buena Vista goes quite out of the way and all of the property in the way there is crazy expensive. Katz lives over there. Digging underground on a declining surface is a completely crazy feat of engineering when you're trying not to interupt the foundations of multimillion dollar homes.
    They put it straight down 87 Avenue to the river bank.

    Katz's mansion is well to the north of 87 Avenue and not impacted.

    I don't agree that it's a crazy feat of engineering. The existing line goes under several buildings including HUB Mall. Care would need to be taken to not undermine foundations when tunneling. Built properly, an LRT tunnel could end up stabilizing the river bank at that location.

    Even if a handful of properties end up being acquired, it will cost much less than the properties required by the much longer SPR West LRT/Downtown Connector. When it comes to property acquisition, I don't think a few million dollar homes deserve any more consideration than the dozens of homes and apartment buildings that had to be acquired for the South LRT in Belgravia or for the North LRT in Central McDougall and Spruce Avenue.

  24. #424

    Default

    Underground on the south side of the river, cross the river on a new bridge, similar to how the Menzies bridge is done now (underground to underground), elevated station in the valley. You could even make the station seasonal at first but, with easier access I believe that it would be a popular way for people to begin using the valley more. Imagine cross country ski trails with a chalet in the valley that serves warm drinks and light lunch. How much do you think the people around Muttart station will be using it as opposed to people going to the conservatory and the park? It'll be very popular stop during the folk fest. The same thing could happen with a station by the zoo.

  25. #425
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    202

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    There was a story in the Journal recently about developing the area around Victoria Park. Add that to the development of Rossdale and then add the Zoo and the Fort into the mix and you could have a good tourist line streetcar. Tying it into an LRT line at the zoo would make it possible to take the streetcar one way and the faster trip back via LRT. Or vice-versa. Also, with the streetcar running past Hawrelak Park ( I still think of it as Mayfair) there may be more events held in the ampitheatre.

    Just doing a rough map and comparing the length of the run I estimate it would be about a one hour trip one way from Rossdale to the Fort.

    Tie it all together with LRT at the Zoo and you could have numerous fuctions running in the valley at once. Dare to dream. And if you dream, dream big!
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Underground on the south side of the river, cross the river on a new bridge, similar to how the Menzies bridge is done now (underground to underground), elevated station in the valley. You could even make the station seasonal at first but, with easier access I believe that it would be a popular way for people to begin using the valley more. Imagine cross country ski trails with a chalet in the valley that serves warm drinks and light lunch. How much do you think the people around Muttart station will be using it as opposed to people going to the conservatory and the park? It'll be very popular stop during the folk fest. The same thing could happen with a station by the zoo.

    http://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1987/01/13



    Looking at the west LRT line objectively:



    Chances are it will be low floor stoney plain road.

    Barring that it will be high floor 87 Ave and the zoo stop will be like the existing LRT Kinsmen Sports Centre stop... You know the one where you see the Kinsmen Sports Centre sign on the building but the train doesn't stop.

    Barring that it will be BRT using existing bridges and roadways with transit signal priority and bus lanes.

    Barring that it will be the local stop busses that currently run in the west end (with some articulated busses on high demand routes)

    Barring that........ Well then maybe we will have a heritage streetcar on a new river crossing, or a station in the valley surrounded by expensive single family houses (that bought their properties because it backed onto an undeveloped natural area).

    So if we are dreaming; I want to be an astronaut.

  26. #426

  27. #427

    Default

    I have to admit that the 87th straight across does look the most appealing.

  28. #428

    Default

    It seems all the focus is on getting through existing communities and then the LRT just disappears into blank space along the western boundary.

    If it's going to take 15 to 20 years or so to get it out to the future west end communities, they will be built up to serve a car culture long before the LRT ever gets there. Just look at all those new neighbourhoods now. They are the same as the old ones!

    When I look at current route plans it seems that they will never get ahead of the curve. It will never be a "game changer", only a compromised system through competing with cars for ridership in old communities. (Unless massive redevelopment can occur in those old areas greatly increasing density.) If you can't attract a lot of ridership in the old communities, why focus on them? In terms of long run ridership potential, the inner city (east of Anthony Henday) route choice doesn't matter much except in determining commute times with a huge risk of high development costs.

    So, I'd sure consider running it the cheapest, fastest way to get it out beyond the Anthony Henday, to get it out into the open fields where future development will occur! Focus on those future developments. New communities would then be designed around the LRT first and cars second.

  29. #429

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    It seems all the focus is on getting through existing communities and then the LRT just disappears into blank space along the western boundary.

    If it's going to take 15 to 20 years or so to get it out to the future west end communities, they will be built up to serve a car culture long before the LRT ever gets there. Just look at all those new neighbourhoods now. They are the same as the old ones!

    When I look at current route plans it seems that they will never get ahead of the curve. It will never be a "game changer", only a compromised system through competing with cars for ridership in old communities. (Unless massive redevelopment can occur in those old areas greatly increasing density.) If you can't attract a lot of ridership in the old communities, why focus on them? In terms of long run ridership potential, the inner city (east of Anthony Henday) route choice doesn't matter much except in determining commute times with a huge risk of high development costs.

    So, I'd sure consider running it the cheapest, fastest way to get it out beyond the Anthony Henday, to get it out into the open fields where future development will occur! Focus on those future developments. New communities would then be designed around the LRT first and cars second.
    It's the old streetcar versus high speed issue.

    To get suburbanites to use the lrt, the incentives have to be better than thier current modes.

    If you have to drive to a park and ride, you may as well just drive to work because paying for parking is going to cost you regardless if it's a block from work or at a city p&r lot.

    Best way to fix that is to use the micro buses within the communities to get people to central nodes where they can catch either a high speed lrt extention with minimal stops, or express buses.

    For the west end, i'd pick high speed any day. The whitemud to the southside would be the cheapest, fastest, most convenient way that would benefit people in the furthest parts of the city best, which is the ultimate goal isn't it?

    The developed areas around Parkview,JP, & Laurier already have a lot buses so really, putting an LRT in that area is sort of redundant.

  30. #430

    Default

    A direct line along 87th ave to the University and downtown would be the best solution for Areas west of 156 or 170 st. The low floor line would be better closer in. If we're going to have 2 lines to the north and two lines to the south why not two lines west? How about 104 ave, 121/124 st, 107 ave, 156 st, Jasper place/Meadowlark? Keeps the two west lines far enough apart that they each have their own catchment areas and, if extended to Meadowlark, provide quick connections to other destinations.

    The low floor line to Mill Woods has a fairly long section around Argyle that lets it pick up some speed, excepting the station for the high school. The west end line is totally in residential with the stations and slowdowns that entails. Low floor - better for middle distances. High floor - faster, fewer stations, best for the outer reaches.

    Putting LRT where there aren't a lot of buses sort of misses the point. LRT replaces all the buses running to the major destinations leaving the buses to serve as feeders for the local area. You plan would be like building a freeway where nobody lives because the built up areas already have a lot of roads.

  31. #431

    Default

    ^you know, its great to imagine all of this stuff, with multiple lines to every part of the city, but at the end of the day, nothing is happening right now, the City it seems, doesn't have the courage to enter a P3 or similar to get more than 1 line building at a time. Its really depressing to me, that by the time west LRT starts (i.e. after Millwoods is built), it will probably be 2030 or later, so this threads going to get very long.

  32. #432
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,280

    Default

    Moa I wish I could disagree with you, but I fear that you are correct.

  33. #433

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Putting LRT where there aren't a lot of buses sort of misses the point. LRT replaces all the buses running to the major destinations leaving the buses to serve as feeders for the local area. You plan would be like building a freeway where nobody lives because the built up areas already have a lot of roads.
    This is where you're flawed.

    The LRT is just another method to get somewhere, same as a bus. You want to replace buses with the LRT which does nothing more than replace the vehicle.

    If busses already work well, then why do we need the LRT?

    Busses have an advantage in that they aren't confined to a linear path which works well because the west end isn't some 1900's era main street.

    It's a large area and an LRT won't work if people can't easily get to it.

    Then you have to deal with the suburbs themselves and the maze of cul de sacs, so people can't easily walk to a bus stop. They'll just drive if it's more than a block. The solution it to route the small busses through those neighborhoods and drop them at main stations. They save money by leaving their cars at home.

    It makes more sense to have one fast route that works as an interlink that covers a larger area of the south west.

  34. #434

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    Moa I wish I could disagree with you, but I fear that you are correct.
    Same.

  35. #435

    Default

    A large part of the cost of transit isn't the vehicles, it's the people to run them. More small buses = higher costs per passenger. Compare that with the cost of running LRT where one driver can carry up to 5 carloads. If you're going to run small buses down every cul de sac your costs are going to be much, much higher.

    The Terwillager area is a joke when it comes to bus routing. Loops and whorls and double backs all over the place. However ETS has to play with the hand that they are dealt. They city needs to look at making it easier for people to get to their bus routes in newer areas if they want more people to take Transit.

  36. #436
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,280

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    A large part of the cost of transit isn't the vehicles, it's the people to run them. More small buses = higher costs per passenger. Compare that with the cost of running LRT where one driver can carry up to 5 carloads. ...
    Alas the city's plans for the Millwoods and West LRT will only support 2 car trains, to support a 4 car train they will need longer platforms which will not fit in downtown without closing street for each station. To handle the same volume you will need more trains, so more expenses to operate as well as longer motor vehicle delays on the streets waiting for the more trains per hour.

    This is one of the major problems with a Dublin style LRT system.

  37. #437

    Default

    ^ if only the people would listen...

    but hey, its a fancy looking low floor lrt, it will instantly turn us into a densely packed european city!!! Who cares about capacity or frequency limitations, or the fact that its actually a suburban commuter, but disguised a fancy looking low floor LRT!!!

  38. #438

    Default

    ^ Meh...

    The 87 ave route favors the suburbs over existing inner city neighborhoods.

    I don't buy your doom and gloom scenario. The system is designed for the next hundred years or so... at the end of that there will be additions to it.

    Get service to places like Oliver, Glenora, Grovner, SPR, Medowlark, and get it done NOW.
    "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

  39. #439

    Default

    its not a doom and gloom scenario, its reality. Care to quantify how you figure the "system is designed for the next hundred years or so" when the projected ridership of the WLRT on opening day will meet or exceed design capacity? What happens in 20 years when this city is much larger? You can't jam more trains on the line, or make the consists longer... Not smart planning.

    A proposed route through downtown, as currently envisioned will have serious capacity and frequency limitations.

  40. #440
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,713

    Default

    ^ i fully agree with you, having a max of 2 car consists is a major CF, leaves no room for future ridership increases and increases the cost of operation significantly. you dont design an lrt system for a hypothetical European style city when every indication points to Edmonton being all suburbs and very little central development for the next half century at least.

    i know it is expensive but man i wish we could tunnel through even a bit of the dt for that line, rearrange some roads and make it work with longer trains.
    be offended! figure out why later...

  41. #441

    Default

    I think we're about to hear some costing for burying part of the DT connector soon, and I don't think it's going to be very affordable.
    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

  42. #442

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by richardW View Post
    ^ i fully agree with you, having a max of 2 car consists is a major CF,
    My understanding is the number of cars will depend on the manufacturer / design chosen. Many low floor cars carry more passangers per car than a Seimens high floor, so its not really comparing apples to apples here. It will all depend on the specs at the end of the day.

    And, from a passenger perspective, I'd rather have more frequent shorter trains, than less frequent longer ones (less waiting around).

  43. #443

    Default

    Why bother making another tunnel? We already have a downtown tunnel that isn't even near capacity at all and could easily support another 2 legs.

    I know... why bother making full use of a great Edmonton asset. Just throw money into another project... a solution in search of a problem that doesn't exist. There is nothing wrong with the way we build LRT now. It has more grade and ROW separation, has much higher capacity, and can support a lot more in the future. Something a growing city needs.

  44. #444

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by richardW View Post
    ^ i fully agree with you, having a max of 2 car consists is a major CF,
    My understanding is the number of cars will depend on the manufacturer / design chosen. Many low floor cars carry more passangers per car than a Seimens high floor, so its not really comparing apples to apples here. It will all depend on the specs at the end of the day.

    And, from a passenger perspective, I'd rather have more frequent shorter trains, than less frequent longer ones (less waiting around).
    oh my sheep... do you care to prove that stat that some how low floor carry more passengers per car than our existing system? Lets compare a 5 car siemens consist to any sort of low floor consist that isn't longer than 90M. 90M is choosen, because that is the longest a station can be within the downtown cooridor. So depending on what ever low floor manafacture your going to go with, it will be 2 to 3 car consist at the most. Add in to the fact that you can get a much higher frequency in the tunnel than on the street and your theory goes right out the window.

  45. #445
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,713

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by richardW View Post
    ^ i fully agree with you, having a max of 2 car consists is a major CF,
    My understanding is the number of cars will depend on the manufacturer / design chosen. Many low floor cars carry more passangers per car than a Seimens high floor, so its not really comparing apples to apples here. It will all depend on the specs at the end of the day.

    And, from a passenger perspective, I'd rather have more frequent shorter trains, than less frequent longer ones (less waiting around).
    your not really making sense here. the number of cars will be dictated by the length of the city blocks. having three shorter cars as opposed to to longer cars would mean less space for humans since there would be understandably more duplication of non passenger-carrying space.

    your second point about the more frequent shorter trains, would you prefer those at rush hour or after an oilers game where everyone tries to jam on the first train? do you want to have the costs of operating (drivers and maintenance) significantly increased?

    the whole idea of the lowfloor tram style system is noble but i feel it is not the right fit for this city. plus the opposition that this thing is gonna get will be spectacular. with that being said, if we could eliminate the max city block length issue through tunneling then i am all for this route.
    Last edited by richardW; 16-11-2011 at 03:25 PM.
    be offended! figure out why later...

  46. #446
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    412

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by richardW View Post
    the whole idea of the lowfloor tram style system is noble but i feel it is not the right fit for this city. plus the opposition that this thing is gonna get will be spectacular. with that being said, if we could eliminate the max city block length issue through tunneling then i am all for this route.
    Wouldn't we have the same problem at 104th/SPR?? Or are you talking about underground for the entire WLRT??

    If money was no option, I think I would lean towards burying the downtown connector until 104th ave, then having an elevated system for most of the rest of the way.. Just think of the views going through Glenora!!!

    Practical?? Probably not
    We would share and listen and support and welcome, be propelled by passion not invest in outcomes. We would breathe and be charmed and amused by difference. -Alanis Morissette

  47. #447
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    412

    Default

    Apparently Grant Macewan and Norquest are interested in having their WLRT station diagonal on the 108th-107th street parking lot. If it would better integrate with the schools, I like this idea!! I would like to see a design first though. A grand entrance can be created for Capital Bulv. Infill can be incorporated. I imagine a large park space with cafes and small restos, surrounding the station.
    Last edited by CalanTheHobbs; 16-11-2011 at 04:44 PM. Reason: Apparently I dont know what the definition of "is" is.
    We would share and listen and support and welcome, be propelled by passion not invest in outcomes. We would breathe and be charmed and amused by difference. -Alanis Morissette

  48. #448

    Default

    ^ It is my understanding that the diagonal route is off the table and has been for several months. Good thing too because it would mean destroying a couple of heritage buildings.

  49. #449
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    412

    Default

    ^
    Chinese community wants LRT moved off 102nd Avenue

    BY GORDON KENT, EDMONTONJOURNAL.COM NOVEMBER 15, 2011

    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...350/story.html

    Meanwhile, MacEwan University and Norquest College supported another potential route change on the west side of downtown.

    They’d like the LRT to go on a diagonal from 104th Avenue and 108th Street to 103rd Avenue and 107th Street before heading straight south on 107th Street to 102nd Avenue.

    While that would allow for growth on a block containing many parking lots, reducing congestion, city planners said the schools would have to help cover any increased costs.

    Council will probably make a final decision on the route Jan. 18, including looking at whether to run the line along 103rd Avenue and 102A Avenue all the way east of 107th Street.
    Last edited by CalanTheHobbs; 16-11-2011 at 05:05 PM.
    We would share and listen and support and welcome, be propelled by passion not invest in outcomes. We would breathe and be charmed and amused by difference. -Alanis Morissette

  50. #450

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by richardW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by richardW View Post
    ^ i fully agree with you, having a max of 2 car consists is a major CF,
    My understanding is the number of cars will depend on the manufacturer / design chosen. Many low floor cars carry more passangers per car than a Seimens high floor, so its not really comparing apples to apples here. It will all depend on the specs at the end of the day.

    And, from a passenger perspective, I'd rather have more frequent shorter trains, than less frequent longer ones (less waiting around).
    your not really making sense here. the number of cars will be dictated by the length of the city blocks. having three shorter cars as opposed to to longer cars would mean less space for humans since there would be understandably more duplication of non passenger-carrying space.

    your second point about the more frequent shorter trains, would you prefer those at rush hour or after an oilers game where everyone tries to jam on the first train? do you want to have the costs of operating (drivers and maintenance) significantly increased?

    the whole idea of the lowfloor tram style system is noble but i feel it is not the right fit for this city. plus the opposition that this thing is gonna get will be spectacular. with that being said, if we could eliminate the max city block length issue through tunneling then i am all for this route.
    More doom and gloom... How many busses would fit on 90 Feet ... 3-4? so one LRT opp can replace 3-4 bus drivers.. still a good deal.. and most of the time the Existing LRT system is running with 1 or two car trains. Increased frequency isn't a major issue. Even with a train running every two min that still allows for TONNES of NS traffic to cross the tracks on a Transportation corridor that is mostly East West. subsequently that is the way the train will also be traveling....

    There are countless math nerds that would have crunched the numbers and have more access to information than us...

    The system, when launched wont be over capacity... lets get real..

    Doom and Gloom... you guys watch to much Fox news.

    Medwards you are also the one that said that you can get, by car from the West end of this line DT faster than the LRT... which we all disproved. Even on my scooter, weaving in and out of traffic doing things that autos cant do. It still takes 15-20 min to get from 101 st to 120st...

    During bad weather it takes me 30 min to get home on the bus...

    Im sorry but your so called facts.. aren't very factual, and IMO, you have lost all credibility in this argument.
    Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 16-11-2011 at 05:32 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

  51. #451
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,713

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post

    More doom and gloom... How many busses would fit on 90 Feet ... 3-4? so one LRT opp can replace 3-4 bus drivers.. still a good deal.. and most of the time the Existing LRT system is running with 1 or two car trains. Increased frequency isn't a major issue. Even with a train running every two min that still allows for TONNES of NS traffic to cross the tracks on a Transportation corridor that is mostly East West. subsequently that is the way the train will also be traveling....
    so basically this thing is just going to be a glorified bus then. also when the current system is running 2 train sets, that because demand is down so its not going to be 2 train set every 3 minutes like the wlrt would be more like a 2 train set every 10 mins which is very different to what you are thinking of.

    There are countless math nerds that would have crunched the numbers and have more access to information than us...
    but there was not countless math nerds that crunched numbers when the original route for the line was different?
    Doom and Gloom... you guys watch to much Fox news.
    lol really buddy, bringing out the old FOX news line? troll harder please



    Anyway I apologize, i will try not to have an opinion next time, best to just follow what is being fed to us. all i did was express my personal want for the downtown portion to be tunneled (expensive yes, the existing tunnel was also expensive no?)
    Last edited by richardW; 16-11-2011 at 06:04 PM.
    be offended! figure out why later...

  52. #452
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,518

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by richardW View Post
    ^ i fully agree with you, having a max of 2 car consists is a major CF,
    My understanding is the number of cars will depend on the manufacturer / design chosen. Many low floor cars carry more passangers per car than a Seimens high floor, so its not really comparing apples to apples here. It will all depend on the specs at the end of the day.

    And, from a passenger perspective, I'd rather have more frequent shorter trains, than less frequent longer ones (less waiting around).
    The increase in passenger capacity in using two 45m car trains compared to three 30m car trains is marginal (less than 10%). Also there is no reason that the 30m x 5 car trains on the existing line could not in future be replaced by 50m x 3 car trains or even 75m x 2 car trains.

    More frequent trains and a street level alignment are fundamentally incompatible. It is quite easy to prove this for yourself. Go to an at grade intersection on the existing line. You will find that a 2 car train (that runs on weekends) takes at most about 10% less time to clear an intersection than a 4 car train (that runs on weekdays). The reason is you have to allow for orange phases to clear the intersection before the train can safely pass.

  53. #453

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by richardW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post

    More doom and gloom... How many busses would fit on 90 Feet ... 3-4? so one LRT opp can replace 3-4 bus drivers.. still a good deal.. and most of the time the Existing LRT system is running with 1 or two car trains. Increased frequency isn't a major issue. Even with a train running every two min that still allows for TONNES of NS traffic to cross the tracks on a Transportation corridor that is mostly East West. subsequently that is the way the train will also be traveling....
    so basically this thing is just going to be a glorified bus then. also when the current system is running 2 train sets, that because demand is down so its not going to be 2 train set every 3 minutes like the wlrt would be more like a 2 train set every 10 mins which is very different to what you are thinking of.

    There are countless math nerds that would have crunched the numbers and have more access to information than us...
    but there was not countless math nerds that crunched numbers when the original route for the line was different?
    Doom and Gloom... you guys watch to much Fox news.
    lol really buddy, bringing out the old FOX news line? troll harder please



    Anyway I apologize, i will try not to have an opinion next time, best to just follow what is being fed to us. all i did was express my personal want for the downtown portion to be tunneled (expensive yes, the existing tunnel was also expensive no?)
    I far from Troll... and add a lot of RESEARCHED and open minded feedback.

    On this one topic I disagree with some, What I find to be narrow minded, comments.

    It's very easy to post made up systems with 7 legs and underground stations.... to create made up travel times and claim things that just are not true.

    Here is the reality... We can''t even fund the millwoods line yet.... We have a mandate to densify and revitalize our inner city neighborhoods and we must start serving our inner city communities BEFORE the new ones around the AHD.

    SPR is the right option for MANY reasons, Having it on ground level will allow for more system be built quickly and please tell me how a system that will have 100% signal priority, Is the length of 3-4 city buses and will move people MUCH faster then thits counterparts confined to auto lanes is a "Glorified bus"

    Last time I checked the Lrt was not stopping every other block.. Did not required every person to enter by and go past the driver... Common the LRT even in it's low form at grade with increased number of stops is NOTHING like a bus other than it has people riding in it ans will have blue paint on it.

    Stop the Fox news style misrepresentation.

    PS Increased frequency will likely move more people than moving to reasonable longer train lengths. and no Having 2-3 min frequency on an at grate system is not impossible... it's just not been done In Canada and you have no experience with it. The new system will see the number of Left hand turns you are able to make up and down SPR greatly reduced.. This is a change and people fight change..
    Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 18-11-2011 at 11:12 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

  54. #454

    Default

    excuse me? Made up systems? Sorry BZZZZT wrong...

    Anything I've ever posted has had much research behind it, and all involve previously recommended routing by the city of Edmonton transporation department... the 87th avenue which we talking about here is far from made up. Perhaps you should drop your childish attitude when you reply, and instead of trying to stiffle the discussion with "The only way is the way I like it to be, anything else is narrow minded" BS. You've yet to counter any of the facts put on this thread... the only retort you ever offer is childish remarks.

    Thanks.

    Also, if you want to discuss the proposed route... GO FIND THE CORRECT THREAD. Notice the title of this thread? Please check yourself.
    Last edited by Medwards; 18-11-2011 at 02:00 PM.

  55. #455

    Default

    The low floor line, with it's 5 car consists works best connecting major nodes. The low floor line, with it's lwoer capacity is best for the inner potion of the city, say within the inner ring road (170 st/Yellowhead/WGD/Whitemud). Different solutions for different problems.

    A low floor line branching off between Central and Churchill that ran down to Millwoods would be excellent. The low floor line could connect Bonnie Doon, the University, Westmount and the western portion of the airport lands as well as running up 97th st to the Lake District.

  56. #456

    Default

    ^ Our road system can't support a 5 car consist on 102 avenue. The block length won't allow anything to exceed 90M. This limits it to 2 cars, maybe 3 car consists. Frequency also becomes an issue, due to all the north-south traffic crossings. You shouldn't penalize people because you building a weak transit link.

    LCD.

  57. #457
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    202

    Default

    ^ ^^ ^^^ et al. concerning train lenght and expandibility of the low floor system

    Sigh...... This post will visit three concepts; station lenght, train capacity, and frequency.

    Station Length:

    The low floor route station length currently stands around 80 to 90 metres due to the block lenth and orientation of the downtown connector. (based on converstations with Stuart Davis Gleer at the downtown connector meeting)

    The station length could be extended provided we were willing to accept trains overhanging the intersections and modifying the vehicle door location or adding ramps to the outer doors. The station length could also be extended if we burried the downtown connector portion of the line. However for the purposes of this post let's assume that this is too expensive or too operationally complex to do.

    The high floor LRT route currently has station lengths of ~ 125 metres however the city only uses 100 metres of this because we are not running 5 car trains yet. (http://www.edmonton.ca/transportatio...ties_Final.pdf Page 64 on pdf or Appendix I page 1) This means that lenth of the proposed low floor station is 66% of the LRT system as we know it and 80% of the length of the station that we currently use.

    Everybody following so far?

    Train capacity:

    Listed train capacity is a bit of a black art (it's related to marketing so that is understandable) it is typically listed as the number of seats plus a certain number of standees per square metre of floor space. (http://www.edmonton.ca/transportatio...cles_Final.pdf page 6 on pdf or page 2.4) This incidentally means that the listed capacities can differ in between two train cars of the same vintage (ie U2 or SD 160).

    So for the purpose of this post let's assume that the capacity of the train is proportional to the floor area. Furthermore let us assume that the trains are the same width. Current selections of low floor trains (from Siemens anyway http://www.mobility.siemens.com/usa/...icle_lines.htm) use longer cars for the low floor models. This increases train capacity at the expense of operational flexibility. Nevertheless the maximum capacity of the low floor line is approximately 66% the capacity of the high floor line with the caveat that to achieve the higer capacity on the high floor line would involve a different choice of vehicle.

    This means that the only coice to increase train capacity of the low floor line is to go from a two car to a one car consist. Compared to the high floor line (which is 30 years old btw) which can still add one car to each train , and can increase the length of each train car.

    Everybody still with me?

    Frequency:

    The downtown tunnel is currently close to capacity once the NAIT line is installed (max rate of one train every 2.5 minutes per direction) capacity increase in the tunnel would involve additional train signaling but is possible. Note that running the 87th ave route does not increase the usage through the tunnel as the NAIT expansion stops at heath sciences station. Also note that the current bottleneck of the high floor system is south of the Edmonton clinic which has a max rate of one train every 5 minutes per direction. It is unlikely that the Edmontonians waiting to cross the downtown tracks would accept a crossing rate larger than the Edmontonians waiting to cross south of the Edmonton Clinic.

    Conclusion:

    The proposed low floor line has good capacity however the abilities to increase that capacity are expensive and complex. There is a risk that the low floor line exceeds expectations for ridership and will suffer from congestion at an early part of its life.

    Ironic isn't it talking about congestion on the transit line (we can only hope)

  58. #458
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    202

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    excuse me? Made up systems? Sorry BZZZZT wrong...

    Anything I've ever posted has had much research behind it, and all involve previously recommended routing by the city of Edmonton transporation department... the 87th avenue which we talking about here is far from made up. Perhaps you should drop your childish attitude when you reply, and instead of trying to stiffle the discussion with "The only way is the way I like it to be, anything else is narrow minded" BS. You've yet to counter any of the facts put on this thread... the only retort you ever offer is childish remarks.

    Thanks.

    Also, if you want to discuss the proposed route... GO FIND THE CORRECT THREAD. Notice the title of this thread? Please check yourself.

    If you only want to talk to people who agree with you (and tell others to leave the conversation) get a dog.

    PS I really like that your tagline is "the city of indecisiveness" yet you are trying to convince everyone that the city should abandon it's approved route for the LRT line to resurrect the 87th ave route

  59. #459
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    There are over 100,000 people within edmonton for whom 87avenue is by far the best option. for all those 100,000 (and growing) SPR is 10 minutes slower to downtown, and about 20 minutes longer to the university.

    There are about 40,000 people who are better served by stony plain road than by 87ave, although for as many as 20,000 of them 87ave or existing bus routes are clearly better to the university, and it's not really clear that SPR will be much better than a bus for many of them.

    Also, for all 200,000+ west side edmontonians 87 will have less negative impact on traffic, and for all 600,000 edmontonians from outside of the west end 87 ave provides significantly better access to the only places in the west end that we ever visit (WEM, maybe the Mis).

  60. #460

    Default

    Tell me where this specific model in its entirety was studied or proposed..

    I'm not being childish.. I like the proposed system. Full stop.

    Discuss what you want but don't try and spread lies and miss information.

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Here's how I vision the west end LRT working out with the rest of the system.. This is the build out plan over 30 years



    *Note that the thick lines use our current LRT system, and the thin lines would be low floor lrt/urban lrt

    If you would like to see how I would phase it out - see the original thread here: http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum...ad.php?t=19771
    "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

  61. #461
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kjh View Post
    Conclusion:

    The proposed low floor line has good capacity however the abilities to increase that capacity are expensive and complex. There is a risk that the low floor line exceeds expectations for ridership and will suffer from congestion at an early part of its life.

    Ironic isn't it talking about congestion on the transit line (we can only hope)
    What's ironic is that reduced demand caused by slow travel times from the far west end and by poor bus connections in the near west end may be what save the line from being overcapacity from day one.

  62. #462

    Default

    EDP - Spend some time in the reference section at the Stanley Milner library. Get back to me when your done. There's over 40 years of LRT studies there. You'll find every route in my map in there. You've still yet to counter any of the facts I've offered. Your only retort is name calling? Maybe you should take a timeout from c2e.

    Note: This thread was created because people who favour the approved route didn't want conversation about other possible routes over riding that discussion. Now those same people are coming to this thread to over ride the discussion ?? good grief.

  63. #463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Please use this thread to discuss alternatives to the approved route for WLRT
    this is the old thread: http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum...read.php?t=105

    To discussion conceptual ideas behind the approved wLRT route, please use this thread

    http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum...d.php?p=303289
    refresher for those that don't know, or don't realize... this is from the first post of the thread...

  64. #464
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,518

    Default

    ^While I can see the rationale for dividing the threads, the unfortunate downside is it can stymie discussion involving route comparisons.

  65. #465
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,518

    Default

    Regarding routes to the West End, the earliest maps when the system was being planned in the early 1970s had a rapid transit line running down either SPR or 107 Avenue with the terminus at 163 Street.

    The change to 87 Avenue for a high speed LRT line happened in the 1980s when it became clear that all of the future population growth in the West End would be centred around that corridor, not SPR or 107 Ave. Another reason for the change was being able to go in a straight line east to interline with the existing tunnel/subway on the south end (thereby minimizing track length).

  66. #466
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,538

    Default

    I think a lot of trouble with roads going to the core is:

    (1) The North Saskatchewan River.

    (2) Narrow road allowances. SPR and many other roads are generally four lanes.

    Unfortunately SPR isn't a great thoroughfare, which will only become more crowded as Edmonton builds further west.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  67. #467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    EDP - Spend some time in the reference section at the Stanley Milner library. Get back to me when your done. There's over 40 years of LRT studies there. You'll find every route in my map in there. You've still yet to counter any of the facts I've offered. Your only retort is name calling? Maybe you should take a timeout from c2e.

    Note: This thread was created because people who favour the approved route didn't want conversation about other possible routes over riding that discussion. Now those same people are coming to this thread to over ride the discussion ?? good grief.
    I never called anyone names...

    Discuss all the routes you want but remember the selection criteria was changed. So keep it within scope. The Inner city West end Neighborhoods need to be serviced... really 107 ave is the only other option worth talking about.
    "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

  68. #468

  69. #469

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Ie. The purple line.
    How can teh purple line be 107 ave.. it stops at the Ram lol.. that was the old 102 Ave route, which I would have loved to see.
    "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

  70. #470

    Default


    PS Increased frequency will likely move more people than moving to reasonable longer train lengths. and no Having 2-3 min frequency on an at grate system is not impossible... it's just not been done In Canada and you have no experience with it. The new system will see the number of Left hand turns you are able to make up and down SPR greatly reduced.. This is a change and people fight change..
    Yes it has - very close to home. The south line in Calgary runs every 3-4 minutes in the peak when trains are heading from Anderson Road OMC to the northeast line - it is at grade with level crossings.
    ETS Trolley Buses - 1939 to 2010 - R.I.P.

  71. #471

    Default

    ^ there ya go...

    yet more doom and gloom avoided.
    "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. #472
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,518

    Default

    ^^Here are the facts about Calgary's South LRT line. Like Edmonton's NE line it was built on a rail corridor which limits the number of at grade crossings.

    Going northbound there are grade separations at all major intersections including Shawnessy Blvd., Shawnee Gate, Canyon Meadows Drive, Anderson Road, Southland Drive, McLeod Trail (crosses from west to east side), Glenmore Trail, 42 Avenue, 34 Avenue, and a tunnel section from south of 12 Avenue to north of 9 Avenue behind City Hall.

    Bottom line. Calgary's South LRT line is much higher speed with many more grade separations than the SPR West LRT route.

  73. #473
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    This south line has 8 or so grade separations with major roads, follows a pre-existing rail corridor has grade separated access to stations and only interacts at grade with a handfull of streets, all of them away from intersections. it is nothing far more like the north east line than any proposed west line, and isn't at all useful as a comparison with WLRT on SPR.

  74. #474
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    There are about 124,000 edmontonians in the eisting SLRT service area by my count, including in areas like riverbend who have poor access, and slrt is overcapacity with 100m trains every 5 minutes.
    There are about 110,000 edmontonians in the 87th WLRT service area, which would be more accessible thanks to more stops, more bus connections and more direct bus access. There's no reason it shouldn't be just as packed.
    There are about 145,000 in the WLRT via SPR corridor. if it provides equally attractive service then it will need 90m cars every 4.5 minutes just to match today's demand. but it won't be completed for 10 years at best, so we can expect demand to grow by 20% by then, requiring 90 trains every 3minutes, 45seconds. with no room for growth.

    If a SPR WLRT isn't at capacity the day it opens it will only be because it doesn;t actually serve the needs of the greater west end.

  75. #475

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    ^ there ya go...

    yet more doom and gloom avoided.
    If you don't have anything to add please just can it. Your post doesn't add anything

  76. #476

    Default

    The big difference with Medwards's WLRT map is that it logically has a station in Callingwood which is a high density neighbourhood. Unlike other routes that terminate at Lewis Estates which is a golf community and a huge parking lot park'n'ride for people living outside of Edmonton.

    Even the 1964 map is better than the WLRT current plans

    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 22-11-2011 at 10:08 AM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  77. #477
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,280

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    ^ there ya go...

    yet more doom and gloom avoided.
    Not its not doom and gloom, its an accurate portrayal of the city's idea how future LRTs should be built. Yes you can move the same number of people with short trains running at increased frequencies, but this increases costs because of additional drivers and increased wind resistance, the trailing cars use less energy to move the air.

    It also increases the delays for pedestrians and motor vehicles, because while a longer train does take more time to cross a given point the safety time margins before and after a train crosses remain the same;

    ex: (Using totally made up numbers on gate crossing, lowering times, plus an bit of a safety margin, 10 seconds)

    A U2 Car is 23.165 m long, travels at 50 km/h (13.89 m/s) therefore it takes 1.67 seconds to cross a given point

    2 car train) 10+1.67+1.67+10=23.34 seconds
    4 car train) 10+1.67+1.67+1.67+1.67+10=26.68 seconds

    so if in an hour we need 10 2 car trains it delays traffic 233 (3:53 seconds) per hour
    or 5 4 car trains delays traffic 133 seconds or 2:13

  78. #478

    Default

    Please do not use minutia reasoning such as wind resistance or wheel friction to justify your position. The difference is so minute that it is unmeasurable.

    Please keep to the more significant differences like more drivers, more capital equipment etc.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  79. #479
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,280

    Default

    Wind resistance is not a minutia, even Tour de France racers use it at 5-30 mph. It is one of the reasons why trains are more efficient than cars. It is also partly a reason why we have semi trailers carrying pup trailers and why in the 70s semi trailers would form convoys. It is a reason why NASCAR drivers draft to save fuel.

    The major component of wind resistance is surface area, as the front of the 1st car bears most of this the factor is closer to 0 for subsequent cars. Wheel friction is a part of rolling resistance is of course cumulative.

    On Mythbusters at 70 mph a car saved 11% in fuel when following 100' behind a semi
    http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/10...-improve-mile/

    As an LRT car is significantly closer than 100' apart the savings are not minutia. But don't let facts get in the way of an emotions

  80. #480

    Default

    Bad comparisons

    A bike that is human powered compared to a 200 ton train

    A truck that cruises at 100kph for hours on end compared to a train that steps and starts every kilometer or so and rarely exceeds 70 kph.

    If you want to talk Physics 101, lets compare the energy to get a 200 ton train from 0-70kph compare to the total energy of wind resistance in the same period?
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  81. #481
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Air resistance is small, though.

    Here are some much bigger costs. To carry the same # of passengers as a 5 car train, low floor LRT will require approximately 60% more drivers. But since the SPR route is longer and slower it will require far more than that. 87ave is 10 minutes faster to downtown, PLUS for 7 minutes the driver is the same trip he will already be doing for NLRT. Since travel time from Lewis estates to university was about (if I recall correctly) 22 minutes that means a 77% premium in labour and Equipment costs for SPR.

    Compound the two factors and SPR will require approximately 2.8 times as many drivers as 87ave.
    It will also require 77% more vehicles, 77% more garage space, 77% more maintenance & cleaning.

  82. #482
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,280

    Default

    Low floor vs high floor carry about the same number of passengers. The SD-160 does come in a low car variant. a comparison with the Seimens Avenio line isn't totally possible as they have middle components that can be added.

    http://www.mobility.siemens.com/en/d...452-x-7600.pdf

    But passenger capacity is more a factor of the width and length of a car rather than low or high floor.

  83. #483

    Default

    capacity of the line is also limited by maximum frequency and speed.

    If the train has to travel slowly for traffic right of management (which is also slower than if it was more row/grade separated like our current system), and also have lots of distance between it and the train behind it (to give enough time to allow a reasonable amount vehicle traffic to go through), and also have a car that's only able to carry only 2-3 cars max in its consist will mean a very low maximum capacity

  84. #484

    Default

    And yet, for all the hand-wringing about cost, I can't help but think having two cars every few minutes could be the game-changer that gets even more Edmontonian butts onto transit and out of their cars. Yes, you're about to read some wishful thinking.

    People hate waiting for transit, especially outside in the cold in winter (point to the tunnel stations). I have a personal belief that this is one of the biggest obstacles to the use of transit systems. Who wants to wait?

    Living in Toronto, the one thing I appreciated about the Subway was that on the two main lines, the maximum interval for service was five minutes (give or take a minute, accidents notwithstanding). If you got your butt onto the platform at 6:11 AM or 12:49 AM, you knew that within 5 minutes you were on your way. Major streetcar routes were Frequent Service (FS - less than 10 min interval) through the workday/rushour. I believe that's the difference for most. On a surface route, this would be plainly visible to people on the street—"There's another one! I can see it three blocks down."

    Course, that will plug up 109st. Now back to the circular argument rehashings!
    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

  85. #485

    Default

    ^ Our trains already run at 5 minute intervals w/ upto 5 car consists. Those time intervals could decrease to 2 minutes if need be.

    WLRT (as the current proposal) won't be able to have that same capacity. You can get the 5 minute intervals but likely not more than that, and only half the train length. WLRT is projected to have as many people or more as the current legs... So why put in a system with 1/4 to 1/2 the capacity? Just doesn't make sense.

  86. #486
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dialog View Post
    And yet, for all the hand-wringing about cost, I can't help but think having two cars every few minutes could be the game-changer that gets even more Edmontonian butts onto transit and out of their cars. Yes, you're about to read some wishful thinking.

    People hate waiting for transit, especially outside in the cold in winter (point to the tunnel stations). I have a personal belief that this is one of the biggest obstacles to the use of transit systems. Who wants to wait?

    Living in Toronto, the one thing I appreciated about the Subway was that on the two main lines, the maximum interval for service was five minutes (give or take a minute, accidents notwithstanding). If you got your butt onto the platform at 6:11 AM or 12:49 AM, you knew that within 5 minutes you were on your way. Major streetcar routes were Frequent Service (FS - less than 10 min interval) through the workday/rushour. I believe that's the difference for most. On a surface route, this would be plainly visible to people on the street—"There's another one! I can see it three blocks down."

    Course, that will plug up 109st. Now back to the circular argument rehashings!
    It's no good having an LRT every 4 minutes if you can't get on. It's also not as attractive when trains come in uneven intervals, say 2minutes, 7 minutes, one minute, six minutes, etc... Even with it's own ROW and minimal interaction with raffic our existing LRT suffers from this to some degree. Interacting with dozens of lights where it can't be given 100% priority the SPR route would have a much bigger problem. Yes, that could be partially solved by giving the train 100% priority traffic be darned, but ETS/traffic department haven't made the trains the exclusive #1 priority on 111st, why should we expect it to be any different on SPR, 104ave or 102ave.

  87. #487
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,518

    Default

    ^One indication that the City does not intend to give trains 100% priority on the SPR route is the plan to have a west-bound platform on the east side and an east-bound platform on the west Side of major intersections. If a west-bound train arrives first at the platform it will be stopped (dwell) there until the east-bound train is ready to go so they can cross the intersection at the same time.

    While this will mitigate traffic impacts somewhat, the trade-off is longer LRT travel times.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345

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
  •