Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 401 to 500 of 559

Thread: Centre LRT | Strathcona

  1. #401

    Default

    It seems to me from the available summary report that we might be getting ahead of ourselves to worry much about whether the bridge can continue to handle the current loads for a long time, but it's clear that we can't add much on top of the current uses without a substantial cost.
    There can only be one.

  2. #402

    Default

    Many cities have a historical bridge that "speak to their time". This being our bridge "of our time" at the turn of the century with a rail bridge. If a new bridge is needed to replace this one by 2040(ish) and transportation needs will have changed, it seems reasonable that the full replacement to something resembling the existing can't be too far off, while having 2 bridges serve what could be one's single function seems off. As transportation and density changes adapt to a new century, the necessity for large amounts of personal car lanes should not greatly increase by the time a new bridge would be built. 1 bridge opened in 2018 carries 3 lanes northbound, while 2 others further north carry multiple north-south lanes of car traffic, and an existing freeway bridge at Groat carries multiple lanes north-south, and the High Level carries 2 lanes south.

    With LRT and bus changes coming within the next 10 years, how much personal car use capacity do you build for?
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  3. #403

    Default

    Assuming the High Level will need to be replaced for car traffic eventually, would it make more sense to build a combined road traffic/LRT bridge instead of just an LRT bridge? The proposed LRT alignment would take out part of Constable Ezio Ferrone. Would it make more sense to take a chunk out of the legislature grounds and build on the below pictured alignment? Would such a lengthy bridge even be feasible, from a fiscal and architectural/engineering standpoint? the "As the Crow Flies" calculator says the span would be approximately 1 mile, or 1.61 kilometres.

    From Google Maps:
    Quote Originally Posted by Google Maps
    Last edited by Ustauk; 27-02-2018 at 10:25 AM.

  4. #404

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GenWhy? View Post
    With LRT and bus changes coming within the next 10 years, how much personal car use capacity do you build for?
    Given that these changes will do next to nothing for the areas where most of Edmonton's growth occurs & that half of Edmontonians have no interest in entertaining alternate modes of transport, I'd say not planning for significant, ongoing personal car use increases would be planning to fail.




    https://www.edmonton.ca/city_governm...tMarch2014.pdf
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  5. #405
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,833
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GenWhy? View Post
    With LRT and bus changes coming within the next 10 years, how much personal car use capacity do you build for?
    Given that these changes will do next to nothing for the areas where most of Edmonton's growth occurs & that half of Edmontonians have no interest in entertaining alternate modes of transport, I'd say not planning for significant, ongoing personal car use increases would be planning to fail.

    I couldn't agree more...

    I've said for a long time...the fuel may change...the machine may become somewhat autonomous...but the personal use, direct from station to station hard cocoon that is yours, leaves when you want, arrives where you want to be...will always trump mass transit.

    Roadworks will be cheaper than rail, PRT, etc. Sure, the young urbanite with zero kids will love the LRT etc, but once Suzy marries Sam Creamcheese, and they have Sarah and Sean Creamcheese, and Sean does ballet, Sarah does hockey, one does book club, the other is in Cadets, and...and...and... yeah...that parenting reality thingy...
    Tired of being taken advantage of .

  6. #406
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    407

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ustauk View Post
    Assuming the High Level will need to be replaced for car traffic eventually, would it make more sense to build a combined road traffic/LRT bridge instead of just an LRT bridge? The proposed LRT alignment would take out part of Constable Ezio Ferrone. Would it make more sense to take a chunk out of the legislature grounds and build on the below pictured alignment? Would such a lengthy bridge even be feasible, from a fiscal and architectural/engineering standpoint? the "As the Crow Flies" calculator says the span would be approximately 1 mile, or 1.61 kilometres.From Google Maps:
    Quote Originally Posted by Google Maps
    The construction of a new bridge also presents the opportunity of allowing 109 street to be fully bi-directional, capable of handling trucks, and allow the realignment of traffic directions and flow on Walterdale Hill, Saskatchewan Drive, Queen Elizabeth Park Road, 88 Avenue NW and 89 Avenue NW and 97 Avenue NW by 111 Street NW.

  7. #407
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,545

    Default

    ^^^So that means almost 1,000,000 people will be living inside the Henday and 275,000 outside of it. I know where I would prioritize LRT construction.

  8. #408

    Default

    This being the Centre LRT thread it'd be more appropriate to split it 358,000 central/inside the inner ring road versus 696,000 outside the inner ring road, or basically 1 central resident for every 2 suburbanite.

    And it's not like the "Inner Ring Road" is a small section of Edmonton. It's a huge swath of town.

    Inner Ring Road – Consists of Yellowhead Trail, 170 Street, 75 St/ Wayne Gretzky Drive, Whitemud Drive
    https://www.edmonton.ca/city_governm...MasterPlan.pdf



    In 2044, there'll be 2 Edmontonians outside the red box for every Edmontonian living in the red box, according to the projections.
    Last edited by noodle; 27-02-2018 at 01:42 PM. Reason: More stuff.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  9. #409

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GenWhy? View Post
    With LRT and bus changes coming within the next 10 years, how much personal car use capacity do you build for?
    Given that these changes will do next to nothing for the areas where most of Edmonton's growth occurs & that half of Edmontonians have no interest in entertaining alternate modes of transport, I'd say not planning for significant, ongoing personal car use increases would be planning to fail.




    https://www.edmonton.ca/city_governm...tMarch2014.pdf
    Exactly, with the coming transit changes in the next 10 years, and further densification, we will be able to see and feel the changes around transportation in the city. As more and better transit options as move to inner and outer ring road communities there will most likely be not only a shift in transit ridership, but trust in the system as it moves towards more frequent and express services. True, many will still drive, but the next 10 years will display if/what shift and growth changes/ ridership changes will occur.

    So, when this line comes to be built in 2035 or 2040(ish), after other extensions are made, transit ridership (or private car alternatives in its many forms) will likely increase and inner ring road car use will decline in 30 years, in one form or another. Autonomous cars are not the sole congestion solution at peak-hour times, for example.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  10. #410
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    173

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David Jackson View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ustauk View Post
    Assuming the High Level will need to be replaced for car traffic eventually, would it make more sense to build a combined road traffic/LRT bridge instead of just an LRT bridge? The proposed LRT alignment would take out part of Constable Ezio Ferrone. Would it make more sense to take a chunk out of the legislature grounds and build on the below pictured alignment? Would such a lengthy bridge even be feasible, from a fiscal and architectural/engineering standpoint? the "As the Crow Flies" calculator says the span would be approximately 1 mile, or 1.61 kilometres.From Google Maps:
    Quote Originally Posted by Google Maps
    The construction of a new bridge also presents the opportunity of allowing 109 street to be fully bi-directional, capable of handling trucks, and allow the realignment of traffic directions and flow on Walterdale Hill, Saskatchewan Drive, Queen Elizabeth Park Road, 88 Avenue NW and 89 Avenue NW and 97 Avenue NW by 111 Street NW.
    it's very very very doubtful the high level will ever come down. if anything it will be transformed into a pedestrian only bridge. i can't imagine the city ever tearing down one of our most important structures. I do not support the city building a third bridge in this area though... i dont support that at all.

  11. #411

    Default

    In 30-50 years, the high level is going to need major major work, if not sooner. It will be a mighty big price tag to maintain even just for pedestrians.

    I love the HLB. I even donated money towards the light the bridge, but the reality is that the original owner of this bridge didn't take care of it, and although it's being maintained now, and the deteriorate has slowed, it has not stopped. It's very likely that the bridge will need to be replaced in the future.

  12. #412

    Default

    ^^
    ^
    I did not mean to imply that I wished to see the High Level dismantled. We should keep it as long as we are able. But, if the reports are accurate, vehicular traffic will eventually need to move to another bridge. I was wondering that if they're planning on building a bridge for LRT down the line for Centre LRT, if it'd make more sense to make a combined automobile/LRT bridge on instead, and if it would be possible to build on my proposed alignment. Thanks!

  13. #413

    Default

    Just how many frikkin bridges do we need in the same area? We already have the High Level (which it sounds like, despite the deterioration, will be kept and maintained) an existing LRT bridge and now potentially bridge number 3 for the new LRT line. Most places run by anyone with a bit of sanity would just have one bridge in the spot, or maybe two if needed (ex. two lanes traffic north/two south).

    This sort of speaks to the muddled, mixed up thinking the City of Edmonton has when it comes to major infrastructure. Can be do anything without turning it into a big expensive muddled mess?

  14. #414
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  15. #415

    Default

    Dave - these ideas are 30-50 years away when the HLB will be at the end of life. Not immediate.

  16. #416
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,457

    Default

    I’m in the minority here when I say I would be happy with a replacement to the HLB. Not only has it suffered very visible shearing and deterioration, it has become a muddled piece of civil infrastructure with congested access and not enough capacity for the city’s needs.

    I see a new bridge as an opportunity to consolidate the central lrt project with another that effectively outflows traffic out of the core and therefore, taking stress off 109th as well.
    Last edited by Stevey_G; 03-03-2018 at 10:31 AM.

  17. #417

    Default

    I'm with you on that Stevey G.
    Edmonton first, everything else second.

  18. #418
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    South Beverly Heights in a small house with a large lot!!
    Posts
    2,049

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Reinvest in the existing HLB, like other cities who respect, treat with and encourage history.
    Unfortunately, Edmonton hasn't got that mentality. When you or someone says "HERITAGE" ,Edmonton sees the word "OLD" Thus an excuse to demolish. Look at DT over the past 30 years. It's sterile and bland to those that appreciate heritage and not monolithic glass boxes we have now.104 st is ther exception. Not the rule.The HLB can continue to be utilized. The question.....will this city see it as a heritage structure? Or as simply an old bridge.... I bet I know the answer.
    Make the RIGHT choice before you take your last breath......

  19. #419

    Default

    Some of you are posting with out realizing the state the bridge is in. In order
    to keep this bridge going past the 30-50 years, you will basically need to rip it down and
    rebuild it from the piers on up.

    the original owner (CP) neglected this structure for far too long for it to be saved

  20. #420
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,046

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Dave - these ideas are 30-50 years away when the HLB will be at the end of life. Not immediate.
    And like the Coliseum building removing the HLB will be an easier decision to make.

    And who says we need a bridge at all? Why not just go under the river and emerge at some point on the other side?
    Last edited by envaneo; 03-03-2018 at 06:29 PM.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  21. #421

    Default

    Eventially it will have to be replaced as steel can only last so long when exposed to elements. I wouldn't mind a two level bridge where vehicles go on top and transit on the bottom.
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  22. #422

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Dave - these ideas are 30-50 years away when the HLB will be at the end of life. Not immediate.
    And like the Coliseum building removing the HLB will be an easier decision to make.

    And who says we need a bridge at all? Why not just go under the river and emerge at some point on the other side?
    Tunneling underneath the river will cost 5x more than building a bridge, especially when the river is in a deep valley.
    Edmonton first, everything else second.

  23. #423

    Default

    YOu'd have to start tunnelling at Jasper and not get back to ground level until Whyte. The LRT is limited to the grades it can traverse.

  24. #424
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,457

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cnr67 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Reinvest in the existing HLB, like other cities who respect, treat with and encourage history.
    Unfortunately, Edmonton hasn't got that mentality. When you or someone says "HERITAGE" ,Edmonton sees the word "OLD" Thus an excuse to demolish. Look at DT over the past 30 years. It's sterile and bland to those that appreciate heritage and not monolithic glass boxes we have now.104 st is ther exception. Not the rule.The HLB can continue to be utilized. The question.....will this city see it as a heritage structure? Or as simply an old bridge.... I bet I know the answer.
    That is a vague and generalized statement. This isn’t some Opera House we are talking about, it is a river crossing with a limited life expectancy that has suffered significant deterioration, more than what it should have over it’s lifetime. Some of us have engineering and structural expertise on these matters so our opinions are a little more grounded and rational than “tear it down because it’s old”.

    So on one hand, we have the arguments of structural engineers. On the other hand, we have a group that is trying to save a weakening and aging piece of infrastructure because of sentimentality. You tell me which opinion you’d lean towards.
    There was no need to change that plaque. We are the City of Champions.

  25. #425
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,457

    Default

    Also, other cities that treat heritage with respect also know when a bridge has exceeded it’s capacity and life expectancy. Google is a beautiful thing if you want to see some of the old demolished bridges of cities like Pittsburgh.

  26. #426
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,046

    Default

    This project will require 2 bridges, one over the river the end over the ravine. How many more bridges do we need in the river valley? And we don't know if even lrt will be needed 30-50 years out.

    As an aside, I'm reminded of that current tv commercial where this company is marketing CD's. It goes something like this:

    "We're getting killed by this internet fad."

    "Why don't we sell online subscriptions instead?"

    "How is that going to help us sell CD's?"

    Will we even need an lrt in 30-50 years? Will there even be a budget for this at that time? Will there be even better and different technologies? Lots of intangibles. How much more money to fix the existing HLB to support Centre lrt? In 30-50 years, there might not even be an apatite for LRT, we don't know.

    Personally, this Centre LRT line is bad idea, in ways I've already discussed previously.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  27. #427
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,046

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stevey_G View Post
    Also, other cities that treat heritage with respect
    They do? Have you seen the difference between Vancouver in the 1970's and today? I invite you to check out the FB page Nostalgic Vancouver to get an idea of what I mean. And its not just Vancouver. Check out old New West etc. Sure its progress. Or is it?
    Last edited by envaneo; 04-03-2018 at 01:37 PM.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  28. #428

    Default

    ^They have saved and maintained two of their oldest bridges.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  29. #429

    Default

    Yes, the problem is the HLB has gone past the point of being saved, and it's CPs fault, not the city of Edmonton's.

    Please - read the Stantec report. If you have, you wouldn't make comments like this.

    The bridge is done. It's on its last legs. In order to save the bridge, you'll need to completely rebuild it from the piers on up, so basically, a new bridge.

  30. #430

    Default

    Correction -

    NOT past being saved, just past the point of being viable for higher loads similar to what it carried back in the day. They make no comment on how long the bridge could last with just the same loads it sees today, or with the addition of a light pathway.
    There can only be one.

  31. #431
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,668

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Correction -

    NOT past being saved, just past the point of being viable for higher loads similar to what it carried back in the day. They make no comment on how long the bridge could last with just the same loads it sees today, or with the addition of a light pathway.
    Yes, they did indirectly comment that the bridge will need likely need further significant rehabilitation to maintain current loading past 2045:

    Quote Originally Posted by Stantec Report That No One Seems to Read But Feel Justified In Commenting On
    Given the City’s current maintenance effort on HLB, adesign life to 2045 is achievable for current loading, and there is margin of safetybecause the structure is not stressed to the limit under current loading. If the structurecondition deteriorates, design (truck) loading can be reduced without impactinggeneral use of the bridge.

    *snip*

    Constructed between 1906-1912, the HLB steel superstructure and pier bents comprisebuilt-up steel plate members fastened with rivets, and riveted plates connect individualmembers. In 1995, deterioration of these connection plates was slowed using a corrosioninhibitor followed by coating of the entire structure. The extent of ongoing deteriorationinside the connections is unknown (not visible); pack rust will build inside the connection,causing plates to bend, rivets to be overloaded, and the connection is in jeopardy. If thisis not mitigated then very costly repairs consisting of removal and replacement with newplates and bolts will be required or loading must be reduced on the bridge.With heavy rail loading removed, loading on HLB is less than original and in 1995 only afew connections with visible severe section loss were replaced. With increased corrosion,and significant increase in loading, this assumption will not be valid; the consequences ofconnection failure can be serious.
    "Past being saved" might be too strong, but the fact is that the bridge will need significant work just to maintain current usage past 30 years. And that means replacing a significant amount of the steel superstructure.
    Last edited by Marcel Petrin; 05-03-2018 at 11:18 AM.

  32. #432

    Default

    I did read it, honest.

    What is the "current maintenance effort"? Don't they do pretty much nothing? So do nothing and it's good to 2045, probably overdue due for a bigger rehab than 1995 by then.

    If the upper deck path/park goes through it should be part of a rehab to at least a 50 year life.
    There can only be one.

  33. #433
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,893

    Default

    Is there any way to remanufacture the trusses, or rebuild the piers?
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  34. #434

    Default

    Are you asking if there's a way to rebuild the bridge from the riverbed up? Sure, but to what end?
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  35. #435

    Default

    Using City Administration Math:

    Building a new bridge with at least 100 year life span, if not much longer: $$

    The cost of bringing the existing bridge up to snuff for another 100 years of life: $$$$$

  36. #436

    Default

    As far as I could tell, Stantec did not give the lifespan of the High Level if used purely for a pedestrian/bicycle/street car bridge, like the New York High Line. We could use it in that fashion until the rust is so bad it will fall into the river.

    Assuming a thirty year remainder for the High Level as a auto corridor, my original question still stands; would it make sense instead of building a purely LRT bridge in about twenty years to instead begin an auto/LRT bridge,running all the way from the west parts of the Legislature grounds to top of the bank of Saskatchewan drive. Given how long it takes to build bridges around here, that would give them ten years to build the new span before the auto traffic had to leave the High Level. Thoughts?

  37. #437

    Default

    Ustauk - I agree, it would make more sense to start thinking about a LRT/Auto bridge than just an LRT only bridge...

  38. #438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Using City Administration Math:

    Building a new bridge with at least 100 year life span, if not much longer: $$

    The cost of bringing the existing bridge up to snuff for another 100 years of life: $$$$$
    Really? While we do have some idea of the cost of a new bridge, I don't think the Stantec report or anywhere else has provided any figures yet for the cost of bringing the existing bridge up to snuff. So we are kind of having a debate missing a key figure.

  39. #439

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Yes, the problem is the HLB has gone past the point of being saved, and it's CPs fault, not the city of Edmonton's.

    Please - read the Stantec report. If you have, you wouldn't make comments like this.

    The bridge is done. It's on its last legs. In order to save the bridge, you'll need to completely rebuild it from the piers on up, so basically, a new bridge.
    Originally Posted by Medwards Dave - these ideas are 30-50 years away when the HLB will be at the end of life. Not immediate.

    Wow! How quickly the High Level bridge seems to have gone from lasting another 30-50 years, to being on its last kegs. I swear your earlier post was just days ago.

  40. #440

    Default

    It's pretty easy to figure out. The report says the piers need to be redone. That's pretty much tearing down the bridge, rebuilding the piers, and building the bridge back up, and if we are all nostalgic about the current look of the bridge and want to restore to that $$$$$ seems pretty reasonable to me.
    Need to also consider that doing this will also mean the bridge will be completely unavailable to traffic for many years.

    Look, I love the HLB - but I'm also realistic about what condition it is in, and what needs to be done to keep it going on the long term based on the findings in the Stantec report, and various other reports over the years.

  41. #441

    Default

    10-25% of the cost of the entire new Walterdale Bridge just to add two paths onto the HLB doesn't bode well for the cost of literally rebuilding the bridge in its entirety from the pilings on up.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  42. #442

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Yes, the problem is the HLB has gone past the point of being saved, and it's CPs fault, not the city of Edmonton's.

    Please - read the Stantec report. If you have, you wouldn't make comments like this.

    The bridge is done. It's on its last legs. In order to save the bridge, you'll need to completely rebuild it from the piers on up, so basically, a new bridge.
    Originally Posted by Medwards Dave - these ideas are 30-50 years away when the HLB will be at the end of life. Not immediate.

    Wow! How quickly the High Level bridge seems to have gone from lasting another 30-50 years, to being on its last kegs. I swear your earlier post was just days ago.
    Yes I'm still talking the same time lines.

    If we are considering a new bridge for LRT in 30-50 years for the "centre LRT" line, we should consider replacing the high level.

    Not sure what you are getting at, I'm not saying anything different today than I was when ever that post was.

  43. #443

    Default

    Really. I hope you are not a doctor. I wouldn't want you going around telling someone whose life expectancy is 30 to 50 years more that they are on their "last legs".

  44. #444

    Default

    No matter when it happens, unless the High Level can be re-mediated in place or completely refit in a very rapid fashion, you either have to redirect traffic to our other bridges, or build the second High Level on a new right-of-way while still using the old one for cars during construction.

    To limit the impact to the river valley, I imagine the bridge being a suspension bridge, like Baling River Bridge in China. You could sink the supports on either side onto deep poured piles, like with the proposed Alldrit tower. Depending on costs and engineering, a center support in the middle of the river may or may not be needed. As a bonus, the High Level II would be majestic looking. Would such a bridge be possible, or would we need to go with a less expensive design with more bridge supports?
    Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia


  45. #445

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    Really. I hope you are not a doctor. I wouldn't want you going around telling someone whose life expectancy is 30 to 50 years more that they are on their "last legs".
    I'm not a doctor. I hope you understand the difference between a human and a piece of infrastructure. The HLB will outlive any normal human life expectancy.

    Please follow the discussion... We are talking about a bridge, not a human life.

    The bridge is in fact, on its last legs. It's pretty much in the old age home now, it can't even do the original workload it was meant to do, and barely able to support anything at all. It's time to start considering its replacement, which will take quite some time to plan, design, build, when all things are considered.

    That's probably why Edmonton is having Stantec look into these things today, rather than waiting for the funeral.

  46. #446

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    Really. I hope you are not a doctor. I wouldn't want you going around telling someone whose life expectancy is 30 to 50 years more that they are on their "last legs".
    I'm not a doctor. I hope you understand the difference between a human and a piece of infrastructure. The HLB will outlive any normal human life expectancy.

    Please follow the discussion... We are talking about a bridge, not a human life.

    The bridge is in fact, on its last legs. It's pretty much in the old age home now, it can't even do the original workload it was meant to do, and barely able to support anything at all. It's time to start considering its replacement, which will take quite some time to plan, design, build, when all things are considered.

    That's probably why Edmonton is having Stantec look into these things today, rather than waiting for the funeral.
    Yes, longer than human life span, but I'm sorry you still fail to see or admit the point. 30 to 50 years and being on "its last legs" are not the same thing.

    You can dismiss my point by saying this is not something that is not going to happen for a long time, but then don't come back a few days later and say it is on its last legs. That sort of contradictory thing only undermines the credibility of your arguments.

  47. #447

    Default

    Its literally on its last legs. There is nothing contradictory being said. The bridge needs to be replaced, and at best it may last 30-50 years. It cant support the loads it was designed to. In 10-15 years, we better know what we plan to do here, grandma is on life support as it is
    Last edited by Medwards; 05-03-2018 at 04:18 PM.

  48. #448

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    It's pretty easy to figure out. The report says the piers need to be redone. That's pretty much tearing down the bridge, rebuilding the piers, and building the bridge back up, and if we are all nostalgic about the current look of the bridge and want to restore to that $$$$$ seems pretty reasonable to me.
    Need to also consider that doing this will also mean the bridge will be completely unavailable to traffic for many years.

    Look, I love the HLB - but I'm also realistic about what condition it is in, and what needs to be done to keep it going on the long term based on the findings in the Stantec report, and various other reports over the years.
    So if it is easy to figure out, tell me what is the figure for $$$$$ ?

  49. #449

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Its literally on its last legs. There is nothing contradictory being said. The bridge needs to be replaced, and at best it may last 30-50 years. It cant support the loads it was designed to. In 10-15 years, we better know what we plan to do here, grandma is on life support as it is
    No, 30-50 years is worst case scenario, practically rebuilding from the ground up is only required if adding significant new loads. Like multiple LRT tracks or significant cantilevers.
    There can only be one.

  50. #450

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    It's pretty easy to figure out. The report says the piers need to be redone. That's pretty much tearing down the bridge, rebuilding the piers, and building the bridge back up, and if we are all nostalgic about the current look of the bridge and want to restore to that $$$$$ seems pretty reasonable to me.
    Need to also consider that doing this will also mean the bridge will be completely unavailable to traffic for many years.

    Look, I love the HLB - but I'm also realistic about what condition it is in, and what needs to be done to keep it going on the long term based on the findings in the Stantec report, and various other reports over the years.
    So if it is easy to figure out, tell me what is the figure for $$$$$ ?

  51. #451
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,387

    Default

    You don't really need to rebuild most of the taller piers, some on the side and the abutments do need work, and its possible to prefab a section then in a weekend replace it or multiple weekends. The video below has some similar ideas where the old bridge is shifted to the side to allow a new bridge to be built. Not the cheapest method but, it is possible.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4APnv4BU3E

  52. #452
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,046

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevey_G View Post
    Also, other cities that treat heritage with respect
    They do? Have you seen the difference between Vancouver in the 1970's and today? I invite you to check out the FB page Nostalgic Vancouver to get an idea of what I mean. And its not just Vancouver. Check out old New West etc. Sure its progress. Or is it?
    Which ones?
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  53. #453
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,893
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  54. #454

    Default

    Yikes, exactly backwards.

    Start with the part that's sure to be highly controversial, most expensive, directly over a street the whole way and offers next to no advantage over a bus other than operating cost, and then consider the part that's actually suitable for an aerial tram (over the river, large grade changes, very little through developed neighbourhoods) only if the unsuitable part works?
    There can only be one.

  55. #455

    Default

    that will never fly.

  56. #456

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Cat View Post
    Are you kidding?


    See anything wrong with using a proven effective mode of transit used successfully in hundreds, if not thousands of installations to move huge numbers of people at very low cost and very efficiently?

    An idea whose time has come as LRT expansion becomes cost prohibitive and the routes far too difficult to integrate into the neighbourhoods without ripping them to pieces forever.

    I applaud the change in attitude to focus on improving transit rather than building mega transportation projects that barely improve transit, if at all.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  57. #457

    Default

    It's good that he's willing to think outside the box, but really an aerial tram - especially one down a dense corridor - is still a capital megaproject. Over the river it's appropriate use of technology. Down Whyte it's clear he's got a solution looking for a problem.

    Edit:

    Brain storming is good, but this idea sounds like it didn't get even a few minutes of thought before getting pitched to the media. Aerial trams don't work everywhere, and it should be readily apparent why.
    Last edited by Highlander II; 13-03-2018 at 08:42 AM.
    There can only be one.

  58. #458

    Default

    I do agree that the 3.1 km route from Rogers Place to Old Strathcona should be the priority.

    If successful, then it makes sense to then expand it east and west of 103rd street on Whyte 2.1km and 2.6km respectively rather than one line from the UofA to Bonnie Doon Mall, of 4.7 km.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  59. #459

    Default

    Does it?
    Taking an aerial tram down the avenue is a whole different game than over the river and some parks. It would have to be high with elevated stations over the street. There would be limited stations, probably fewer than an LRT would have, so access would be an issue. and unlike a bus or a tram turning to go north to connect to the university wouldn't be a trivial issue.

    Just fixing and upgrading the existing bus is what makes the most sense.
    There can only be one.

  60. #460

    Default

    There might be other locations where trams do make sense in Edmonton, like other river crossings, or routes that would otherwise require cutting a ROW through a ravine or park. McKinnon Expressway?
    There can only be one.

  61. #461
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,734

    Default

    If nothing else this will almost definitely make more people realize that maybe a street-level LRT solution isn't the worst idea.

  62. #462

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex.L View Post
    If nothing else this will almost definitely make more people realize that maybe a street-level LRT solution isn't the worst idea.

    Let me rephrase that; "If nothing else this will almost definitely make more people realize that maybe another street-level LRT fiasco isn't the best idea."
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  63. #463

    Default

    From the Gondola thread, here's my proposed MacEwan/Roger's to Whyte/UofA Express Route, based on the #7 route. Run it every fifteen or twenty minutes at peak hours, before and after Roger's events, during the Fringe, and around bar closing time. Stops would go MacEwan->Roger's->Churchill->ATB/Telus (by Jasper Ave)->99 st->103 st ->109 st->U of A.



    A gondola over the river makes sense, as it combines a great tourist attraction with the gondola's ability to cross the river relatively inexpensivly for public transit. It does not make sense to run one down Whyte Avenue.
    Last edited by Ustauk; 13-03-2018 at 11:06 AM.

  64. #464
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,734

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex.L View Post
    If nothing else this will almost definitely make more people realize that maybe a street-level LRT solution isn't the worst idea.

    Let me rephrase that; "If nothing else this will almost definitely make more people realize that maybe another street-level LRT fiasco isn't the best idea."
    Let me re-rephrase that; "If nothing else this will almost definitely make more people realize that a completely different style of street-level LRT could work because it won't bring the same issues as the current street-level LRT, complete with cumbersome overbuilt crossings, with it."

  65. #465
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,893

    Default

    I think a simple strategy would be to take hourly parking off Whyte Avenue at peak hours, and have bus lanes from 99-112 Street (and no trucks parked at College Plaza). Also have priority signals at 99 Street, Gateway, 104 Street and 109 Street.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  66. #466

    Default

    How much time does the bus spend waiting for traffic? queue jumps at a handful of priority signals would be 95% as good as a full lane.
    Then allow all-door boarding, and cut stops to every 2 blocks rather than every block

    Or just increase frequency. On a route like whyte that could be busy it should be cheaper and easier to save the average passenger 5 minutes waiting time than it is to save 5 minutes travel time.
    There can only be one.

  67. #467

    Default

    That's a good first step but it could be better. I live on Jasper and 105 street and there is no reasonable way to get to Whyte Ave quickly. Jasper and Whyte are our main streets, and they should be connected better. Could we not simply have a circular route that goes west down Jasper, south over the High Level, then east along Whyte ave to Scona Road and back again?
    Go down a few dark alleys.

  68. #468

    Default

    Because good ideas are too complex for ETS
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  69. #469
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    4,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mnugent View Post
    That's a good first step but it could be better. I live on Jasper and 105 street and there is no reasonable way to get to Whyte Ave quickly. Jasper and Whyte are our main streets, and they should be connected better. Could we not simply have a circular route that goes west down Jasper, south over the High Level, then east along Whyte ave to Scona Road and back again?


    Ever heard of ETS bus route #52 ?

    And there's the high level bridge streetcar from May til September.

  70. #470

    Default

    The HLB streetcar limited hours and frequency is not a reliable form of public transit.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  71. #471
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,457

    Default

    Tossing ideas out here. What about a long term plan calling for the HLB replacement with LRT running below the superstructure of a 4 lane artery? One which branches off and tunnels past Saskatchewan Dr./Walter Dale road and rise up along the old rail ROW? It would run underground approaching Calgary Trail and then offload the majority of it's riders near the Scona Farmers Market at a new underground stop. It would then hairpin down into the valley, bridge across the river with street-level stops in Rossdale along 101 st near the Baseball Field. It would proceed tunneled up Mcougall Rd eventually rising to street level again headed north up 99st and finally connecting to the Valley line LRT at Churchill.

    Go on critics! Find something wrong with m'plan!
    There was no need to change that plaque. We are the City of Champions.

  72. #472

    Default

    Can I give you about a billion or two reason$ ?

    A combination 4 lane bridge with LRT and another bridge NB and three or 4 tunnels you describe would be tremendously expensive and LRT does not do 'hairpins'. This type of MEGA transportation project is what we are trying to avoid. A $25M to $50M gondola with a 12 second frequency is much more appealing and reasonable IMHO.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  73. #473

    Default

    ^^^^Have you ever taken route 52? It crosses Whyte Ave at 99 street. Not many reasons to head over there as most things are happening 103-109th. Also, in winter, no one wants to spend a long time walking a long way.

    The high level bridge streetcar is fun but not practical.
    Go down a few dark alleys.

  74. #474

    Default

    #52 runs up 106 st from Southgate, then along 104 st through Rossdale usually terminating at the Government Transit Centre or sometimes right at City Centre Mall. There are many efficiencies to be made in both east-west and north-south bus routes through the area. Main easy fix is for more bus priority and higher frequency along 99 st and Whyte.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  75. #475
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,046

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mnugent View Post
    ^^^^Have you ever taken route 52? It crosses Whyte Ave at 99 street. Not many reasons to head over there as most things are happening 103-109th. Also, in winter, no one wants to spend a long time walking a long way.

    The high level bridge streetcar is fun but not practical.
    I've taken that #52 from Southgate many a time. Downtown the #52 heads West on Jasper and left turns on 107th street beside Corona station there. I tracked it from inside the #5 the other day.

    After pondering a Gondola system across the river and using something like Ustauk's modified ETS route map, I think that idea has some merit.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  76. #476
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    4,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mnugent View Post
    ^^^^Have you ever taken route 52? It crosses Whyte Ave at 99 street. Not many reasons to head over there as most things are happening 103-109th. Also, in winter, no one wants to spend a long time walking a long way.

    The high level bridge streetcar is fun but not practical.


    Noparooni.

    Route 52 runs down Jasper to 107 Street.

    On to the Leg.

    Over the High Level.

    East on Sask Drive to 104 Street.

    And north on 104 street to about 76 Avenue.

    It crosses Whyte avenue at 104 street.

    You can pop into O2's.

    Buy Top_Dawg three or four beer.

    And then go do whatever else you gotta do.

  77. #477

    Default

    Ok you're all correct - I don't know what I was thinking of. I don't think that the 52 has ever been the quickest way for me to get down there the times when I've looked on Google Maps. However, it would still be nice to have a Jasper-Whyte ave loop.
    Go down a few dark alleys.

  78. #478
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    4,031

    Default

    Top_Dawg takes it often when he stays in Mill Creek and he wants to go check on Pa_Dawg.

    Granted on weekdays the last one leaves the Leg at six bells.

    But it does run all day Saturday.

    Super convenient.

    And fast.

    There's very few people on it.

    Saturdays usually nobody.

    Top_Dawg can take it downtown and then back to Whyte and he doesn't have to drag his truck back to the house.

    Just go directly to Whyte and pound back brews.

  79. #479

    Default

    Lets not forget, at some point in the next 30-50 years, we will need to serious consider replacing the HLB.

  80. #480
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,046

    Default

    ^ Me too. And why can't such a loop be a Gondola system? We wouldn't need to spend $400M on it and it might even add to the charm of Whyte Ave in some way I can't imagine at the moment.

    My only concerns with a Gondola system (Centre line) is security for its passengers and frequency of stops, along the route. Also how would these stops be designed from the sidewalk position and fit in with the overall look and feel of the area.

    What with the new Raymond block on Whyte Ave it might look silly with a Gondola type system moving a few feet from my Whyte ave balcony.

    Just being silly today.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  81. #481
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,046

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Top_Dawg View Post
    Top_Dawg takes it often when he stays in Mill Creek and he wants to go check on Pa_Dawg.

    Granted on weekdays the last one leaves the Leg at six bells.

    But it does run all day Saturday.

    Super convenient.

    And fast.

    There's very few people on it.

    Saturdays usually nobody.

    Top_Dawg can take it downtown and then back to Whyte and he doesn't have to drag his truck back to the house.

    Just go directly to Whyte and pound back brews.
    When I was working at the Heart & Stroke foundation last year, in Centre 104 just off of Gateway Blvd, that #52 brought me right behind the Toyota dealership heading South. I could just cut through the North side of the dealership to the light standard and into work . Easy peasy.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  82. #482
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,457

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Can I give you about a billion or two reason$ ?

    A combination 4 lane bridge with LRT and another bridge NB and three or 4 tunnels you describe would be tremendously expensive and LRT does not do 'hairpins'. This type of MEGA transportation project is what we are trying to avoid. A $25M to $50M gondola with a 12 second frequency is much more appealing and reasonable IMHO.
    2 billion dollars for tunneling 1.2 kms? Where did you get those numbers from? I would make the supposition that that would only cost about 340 million dollars. Also, LRT's do hair pin at large radii. It's pretty simple math if given some of the train's dynamics.

    This route would utilize existing rights of way and it would integrate with the entirety of Strathcona community as it cuts through it's heart with stops three blocks away from Whyte as it goes. Walking distance even in the coldest weather if you ask me. The HLB needs to be replaced eventually anyways so there are capital cost savings by integrating this project into that one instead of spending an unknown amount on a 3rd crossing.

    There are many benefits to a circulator tying downtown and Scona together, but it has to be done right and not in a way that congests and makes Whyte Ave unappealing and avoidable.
    There was no need to change that plaque. We are the City of Champions.

  83. #483

    Default

    ^You mentioned two new bridges. Those cost money. Tunnels are only part of the system you propose. Do you have a sketch of the route and the bridge length and location.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  84. #484
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,457

    Default

    Ah yes good point. You mean as a whole the costs would be that.

    At NAIT I do. It would definitely cost a billion all together but It would also provide the city with a permanent connector that would service the city for over 100 years. Also a replacement that is logical for the HLB.

    I think it’s better than running up Whyte. What a congested nightmare that would be

  85. #485

    Default

    That is why being able to go overhead with a gondola is a good idea. ZERO interference with traffic or pedestrians
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  86. #486
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,545

    Default

    Perhaps something like this
    https://youtu.be/ov_Zm1gcht8
    “Canada is the only country in the world that knows how to live without an identity,”-Marshall McLuhan

  87. #487
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    South Beverly Heights in a small house with a large lot!!
    Posts
    2,049

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Glenco View Post
    Perhaps something like this
    https://youtu.be/ov_Zm1gcht8
    Compare this to at grade LRT...NO COMPARISON... This can run where NO lrt would be able without extensive demolitions. I like this.
    Make the RIGHT choice before you take your last breath......

  88. #488

    Default

    I had previously written a lot about the H-Bahn in Dortmund Germany including this post in 2010

    The Siemens (where do I know that name from) system is so quiet and inobtrusive, so much so, it does not bother the rabbits feeding in the grass as the monorail floats overhead.


    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    If you look at another thread I am also I am also looking at other systems including monorail (which I did not like until I found some other systems that are cheaper and easier to build with elevated and ground level stations that is built by Siemens BTW.

    see http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum...ad.php?t=17380

    (notice the three rabbits munching on the grass beneath the H-Bahn?)

    The Siemens H-Bahn (also known as SIPEM for SIemens PEople Mover) has been around since the early 70s. A test track was built at a Siemens-DUEWAG facility and the first operational installation was at Dortmund University in Germany in 1984. The latest opened at the Düsseldorf International Airport. The SIPEM system is designed as a medium-capacity transit system, carrying up to 15,000 passengers per hour per direction (pphpd).

    The system in Dortmund was the first automatically controlled urban transit system in Germany. Two cars carrying 42 passengers each traverse a 1-km long main line which links two university campuses. Several track extensions have been added since it opened, which include several switches and a spur line. The Düsseldorf Airport SkyTrain, the second Siemens H-Bahn system, opened a 2.5km double guideway line in 2002.


    http://www.monorails.org/tmspages/TPSiem.html

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

  89. #489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Top_Dawg View Post
    Top_Dawg takes it often when he stays in Mill Creek and he wants to go check on Pa_Dawg.

    Granted on weekdays the last one leaves the Leg at six bells.

    But it does run all day Saturday.

    Super convenient.

    And fast.

    There's very few people on it.

    Saturdays usually nobody.

    Top_Dawg can take it downtown and then back to Whyte and he doesn't have to drag his truck back to the house.

    Just go directly to Whyte and pound back brews.
    When I was working at the Heart & Stroke foundation last year, in Centre 104 just off of Gateway Blvd, that #52 brought me right behind the Toyota dealership heading South. I could just cut through the North side of the dealership to the light standard and into work . Easy peasy.
    If you didn't care about making a 99 st to UofA express, or would rather have that as a second route, a modified 52 would do the trick as a Downtown/Whyte feeder. Instead if proceeding to Southgate, have priority transit traffic signalling let the bus turn right/ west on Whyte, go to 105 st, turn right again, and on Saskatchewan drive to head back to downtown via QE Park Road. Instead of heading north on 103 st to 103 ave when it's downtown, you have it head north on 105 st to 104 ave, and run it past Roger's. Run it at higher frequency at rush hour during events, and at bar closing. And, most importantly, label it as Downtown and Whyte Avenue; I forgot about the 52 myself, since it labelled a Southgate bus.

  90. #490
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,046

    Default

    ^ Ok, now that I've had some time to process a Gondola system, my only concerns would be security for passengers, frequency of stops and how fast such a Gondola car system would go. those are my 3 main concerns.

    Your map idea makes sense speed of the system would be an important issue.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  91. #491

    Default

    Security with gondola systems is easy to do. Compared with buses that make dozens of stops at simple locations, gondolas have stations and it is easy to control passengers for ticketing, embarking and disembarking where security cameras can be installed. As described in earlier posts, criminals do not like locations where they are monitored going in and going out. If a higher level of security is necessary, wireless CCTV can be installed in each gondola but that is not usually necessary.

    As many stations can be installed as desired but each one adds cost to build the station but also to staff it. I see that a line from Old Strathcona to Rogers Place would have 4 to 6 stations. Gondolas can be fixed to the line or can disengage. Disengagement allows for faster line speeds and allows the cabins to come to a full stop when loading vs slowing down. Most newer systems allow for disengagement from the cable. On some systems, cabins can be loaded for handicapped accessibility, totally off line and the cabin moved and connected to the system. Some systems even allow cabins to switch automatically from one system line to another system line.

    I like systems with cabins in the 4 to 8 passenger range rather than less frequent gondolas with 20 to 50 passengers. Those require heavier cables, poles and infrastructure do to high point loading.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  92. #492
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,893

    Default

    I think the gondola right-of-way cannot go over houses. Streets, yes. Each tower would likely be 100 m (or one block) apart. Where would the towers go?
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  93. #493

    Default

    I'm not sure gondolas are the solution for a mass transit system.

    Gondolas often shut down in high wind situations. I would imagine once a few rescues are needed, this will be a less favorable option.


  94. #494

    Default

    I don't think we have anywhere near the winds as in the Kicking Horse mountain top.

    Even in the Kicking Horse Pass, they get less than 10 hours of wind over 61 KPH a year. If the system operates 20 hours /day and 365 days per year that is 8.3 hours out of 7,300 or 0.11%

    In Edmonton, the percentage of a forced closure would probably be a fraction of that. Lets not forget how often the NAIT line has been down.

    Let's be realistic
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  95. #495
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sherwood park
    Posts
    2,485

    Default

    How high would a gondola system have to be? Can tree canopies provide partial protection from winds?

    Having a continual system where wait times are in the fraction of minutes rather than fraction of hours seems quite appealing.

  96. #496

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    I don't think we have anywhere near the winds as in the Kicking Horse mountain top.

    Even in the Kicking Horse Pass, they get less than 10 hours of wind over 61 KPH a year. If the system operates 20 hours /day and 365 days per year that is 8.3 hours out of 7,300 or 0.11%

    In Edmonton, the percentage of a forced closure would probably be a fraction of that. Lets not forget how often the NAIT line has been down.

    Let's be realistic
    I think it’s an easily doable project - all at a fraction of the cost of most other options.

    It’s the reliability of service, security, strange unexpected issues (jumpers, mentally ill, drunks, pissers,...) outages & resues, etc that could be a problem. And as everyone knows, gondolas currently carry large numbers of passenger so where nothing else can and on average in weather far, far worse than we’d ever see.

    Nonetheless, it’s the few times that it has to be halted that would allow critics to tarnish the whole project. So that’s where the operational issues have to be scoped out and thoroughly discussed. For example, it’s an integrated system so how is maintenance performed? Are such systems kept running or are they shut down for a day or two for cable system repairs, replacement, inspections, etc. What would interruption in service do? Etc......
    Last edited by KC; 14-03-2018 at 09:01 AM.

  97. #497

    Default

    The video I linked the rescue, the gondola was down due to power issues, not wind issues.

  98. #498

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    I think it’s an easily doable project - all at a fraction of the cost of most other options.

    It’s the reliability of service, security, strange unexpected issues (jumpers, mentally ill, drunks, pissers,...) outages & resues, etc that could be a problem. And as everyone knows, gondolas currently carry large numbers of passenger so where nothing else can and on average in weather far, far worse than we’d ever see.

    Nonetheless, it’s the few times that it has to be halted that would allow critics to tarnish the whole project. So that’s where the operational issues have to be scoped out and thoroughly discussed. For example, it’s an integrated system so how is maintenance performed? Are such systems kept running or are they shut down for a day or two for cable system repairs, replacement, inspections, etc. What would interruption in service do? Etc......
    LRT also has maintenance issues. Most maintenance can be done at night or weekends just like LRT. If there is a major interruption as with LRT, send buses. After the NAIT fiasco that still continues, anything is better than what has happened to the hugely expensive 'shovel ready' project that was 20 months delayed because of a software issue.

    BTW, the fastest gondola lifts operate at 22kph so the 3.1 km from Rogers Place to Whyte would only take 8-9 minutes and have a 10-20 second frequency depending on the needs and amount of cabins.
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 14-03-2018 at 10:22 AM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  99. #499

    Default

    You should read the whole article:


    Cable Cars Are Changing the World – How We Get To Next
    “...
    The ability of cable car systems to easily link up with existing transport infrastructure, as seen in the COMILOG cableway example, is a key reason for their third modern renaissance — this time as mass transit.

    “Imagine a theoretical city where your home is one mile away from the nearest metro stop,” says Dale. “Servicing that last mile is incredibly inefficient. We have [public transport] funding problems because we have to get people to the subways, to the metros, through that last-mile problem. That’s where our inefficiencies mostly build up — because we use inefficient technologies like buses and streetcars.”

    But cable cars, Dale says, are ideal for fixing that problem — particularly when you factor in topography. “They can provide very high-frequency service — less than a minute wait times — at a very comparable cost to buses and streetcars. In a first-last-mile problem, they’re beautiful — basically acting as feeding systems.”

    He adds: “With a cable car there is virtually no incremental cost in adding capacity and lowering wait times. With a streetcar or bus system, the incremental cost is significant — in order to expand capacity or lower wait times, you need to buy/run more buses/streetcars and then staff them as well.”


    In Medellín, this factor made a real difference to the success of the scheme — the cable car system there is fully integrated into the metro network, so riders can...”

    Most impressive of all, though, is the technology that will go into the cable car system itself. The Gothenburg scheme will run on three cables — two for support and one for pulling. That allows for up to almost a half-mile [one kilometer] between towers and exceptional wind stability. Traffic on the city’s bridges is limited at wind speeds of 49 m.p.h. [22 meters per second], but Gothenburg’s cable car should be able to operate safely at speeds of up to 60 m.p.h. [27 meters per second].

    “The London system, which is a monocable, shuts down at 14 metres per second [31 m.p.h.]. It’s down about 30 days a year due to wind, and that’s not acceptable for us,” Jonsson says. I ask how many would be acceptable. “One,” he says. “Perhaps a half, one every second year. The cable car won’t be the first system to be shut down when we have bad weather, it will be the buses and the ferries.”
    ...”

    https://howwegettonext.com/cable-car...d-61f2b803c129




    Amazing speeds - like modern elevators!

    Bolding mine
    Last edited by KC; 14-03-2018 at 10:56 AM.

  100. #500

    Default

    Maybe each car/cabin could have a screen in it for advertising revenue. A 10 minute captive audience.

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 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
  •