Page 2 of 14 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 200 of 1366

Thread: The Trolley Bus Thread

  1. #101

    Default Re: Trolley Bus

    Quote Originally Posted by GizmoForMayor
    Just saw the new 'test' trolley bus cruising around the city. Looks pretty sleek and seemed much quicker than the old ones. I hope they decide on those, despite the higher price tag...
    I agree.

    By the way, these photos of it were linked to in another thread, but this is probably as good a place as any to post them.

    http://www.barp.ca/bus/alberta/ets/2...lfr/index.html

    I especially like the one in front of the Epcor building...


    I think Edmonton looks exceptionally good in that picture.

    Many thanks to barp.ca and Martin Parsons. Finally I can see a cool looking picture of a trolley actually in Edmonton!

  2. #102
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    311

    Default

    did they buy this from vancouver? its the same bus and color style as vancouver uses

  3. #103
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,153

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by danby
    did they buy this from vancouver? its the same bus and color style as vancouver uses
    Is on loan or something

  4. #104
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    6 degrees north of you
    Posts
    784

    Default

    ETS has leased this bus from Vancouver for one year.
    They're doing some kind of environmental testing with it
    too, comparing it with the new 'clean' diesels, and the
    different hybrid buses they have, and the current trolleys too.

  5. #105
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by microbus
    They're doing some kind of environmental testing with it
    too, comparing it with the new 'clean' diesels, and the
    different hybrid buses they have, and the current trolleys too.
    A while it does seem that they are comparing 6000 to the current trolleys, why? After all, it's not like they are comparing the GM diesels to a 2007 "clean" diesel.

  6. #106

    Default

    Hopefully the only thing they want to see is what to change for the Edmonton version of it. As bagould said in the other thread, they may have concerns with the comfort and safety of standees (not enough poles to grab onto). Also there might be some question of how to modify something or other for Edmonton's winter. (the brakes? steering? battery insulation? snow and sand shields for this equipment or that?)

    They should also look at rider preferences, and really ask people which they prefer spending up to and over an hour a day in.

  7. #107
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee
    Also there might be some question of how to modify something or other for Edmonton's winter. (the brakes? steering? battery insulation? snow and sand shields for this equipment or that?)
    Brakes, are more or less brakes. 6000 does have regen breaking so actual friction break use is at a minimum.
    The bus will need better heaters. In fact, apparently 6000 is only allowed out on days of -20 or warmer.
    Of course, ETS would probably spec draft doors!

    Anyways, I added more pics of 6000 to the link that's five or so messages above this one.

  8. #108

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee
    Hopefully the only thing they want to see is what to change for the Edmonton version of it. As bagould said in the other thread, they may have concerns with the comfort and safety of standees (not enough poles to grab onto). Also there might be some question of how to modify something or other for Edmonton's winter. (the brakes? steering? battery insulation? snow and sand shields for this equipment or that?)
    Vancouver's roads get covered with salt every winter, so the bus is designed to handle that.

    The only major changes for Edmonton should be a better heating system and redesigning the equipment on the roof to fit Edmonton's very low clearances.

    The rest (seating layout, handholds, draft door, rear door controls, etc.) are pretty minor changes.

  9. #109
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,432
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Modulator42
    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS
    #6000? I followed that Translink loaner along Jasper. Yes, the acceleration was pretty good, but it STILL had that migraine inducing whine.
    You live up to your 'grumpy' tag line . Our new LRT cars, incidentally, will have a similar whine. I prefer the noise of a trolley--it's quieter than the rumble of a diesel engine--but to each his own, I suppose.
    That high pitched squeal is worse than a 2 year old girl trying to annoy her Dad. The lower pitch rumble is not nearly as offensive.

    Yes, electrics accelerate better. Yes, I prefer the flat torque curve of an electric.

    However, I am still not 100% convinced the trolley is the answer. After all, I have a coal-belching plant in my backyard as testiment to how "clean" this is...
    Since calm logic doesn't work, I guess it is time to employ sarcasm. ...and before you call me an a-hole...remember, I am a Dick.

  10. #110
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    132

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS
    Quote Originally Posted by Modulator42
    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS
    #6000? I followed that Translink loaner along Jasper. Yes, the acceleration was pretty good, but it STILL had that migraine inducing whine.
    You live up to your 'grumpy' tag line . Our new LRT cars, incidentally, will have a similar whine. I prefer the noise of a trolley--it's quieter than the rumble of a diesel engine--but to each his own, I suppose.
    That high pitched squeal is worse than a 2 year old girl trying to annoy her Dad. The lower pitch rumble is not nearly as offensive.

    Yes, electrics accelerate better. Yes, I prefer the flat torque curve of an electric.

    However, I am still not 100% convinced the trolley is the answer. After all, I have a coal-belching plant in my backyard as testiment to how "clean" this is...
    What will you say as soon as a nuclear power plant starts up near Peace River? Surely, steam from nuclear energy produces less greenhouse gases than emissions from burning diesel.

  11. #111
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,432
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    ...not afraid of nuclear...but the 3-unit coal belcher is still in my backyard for the next 60+ years, and there are more on the way. So, our total nuke capacity is what...
    Since calm logic doesn't work, I guess it is time to employ sarcasm. ...and before you call me an a-hole...remember, I am a Dick.

  12. #112
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    132

    Default

    Rode the New Flyer trolleybus last Friday. She is one sick piece of machinery.

  13. #113
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    6 degrees north of you
    Posts
    784

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RicoLance21
    Rode the New Flyer trolleybus last Friday. She is one sick piece of machinery.
    sick? or slick?

  14. #114
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,688

    Default

    If the city of Edmonton/Edmonton Transit buys busses like this to replace the old trolley busses then I would have no problem with seeing the trolley system stay. I've only seen the pics but the bus inside and out looks good.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  15. #115
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,425

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS
    That high pitched squeal is worse than a 2 year old girl trying to annoy her Dad. The lower pitch rumble is not nearly as offensive.
    For me, both pale in comparison to the screeching release of compressed air. That is a truly annoying noise. Why can't they use hydraulic brakes - especially on a trolley or hybrid with regenerative braking. They could do away with compressed air and the accompanying irritation entirely.

  16. #116
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    6 degrees north of you
    Posts
    784

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48
    For me, both pale in comparison to the screeching release of compressed air. That is a truly annoying noise. Why can't they use hydraulic brakes - especially on a trolley or hybrid with regenerative braking. They could do away with compressed air and the accompanying irritation entirely.
    I'm not aware of any heavy vehicles that use hydraulic brakes.
    A packed transit bus can easily weigh 25 tons or more, so
    I'm not sure that hydraulic brakes would work unless the
    tire size/brake drum size was increased significantly.

  17. #117
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    132

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by microbus
    Quote Originally Posted by RicoLance21
    Rode the New Flyer trolleybus last Friday. She is one sick piece of machinery.
    sick? or slick?
    Either way works fine. I do mean sick in a positive way.

  18. #118
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,432
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48
    For me, both pale in comparison to the screeching release of compressed air. That is a truly annoying noise. Why can't they use hydraulic brakes - especially on a trolley or hybrid with regenerative braking. They could do away with compressed air and the accompanying irritation entirely.
    Air Brakes are more powerful...and they are also easier to maintain.
    Since calm logic doesn't work, I guess it is time to employ sarcasm. ...and before you call me an a-hole...remember, I am a Dick.

  19. #119

    Default

    Isn't there some other way they could mitigate the sound of the air blasts? Good old insulation, perhaps?

    I agree that reducing that sound is just about the only conceivable improvement there could be for road based mass transit's coexistence with streetlife. (without building with aluminum and carbon fibre, or something.)

    tdh5301-001:
    Thanks for the added pics. Absolutely wonderful, I have several new favourites.

  20. #120

    Default Trolley trouble short-circuits morning rush

    Trolley trouble short-circuits morning rush

    Duncan Thorne, Edmonton Journal
    Published: September 11, 2007 11:41 am


    Traffic from the west end ground to a stop during this morning's rush hour when a trolley bus power line fell on a steel bridge.

    "It couldn't have happened at a worse time," said Larry McCormick, traffic operations manager.

    "Everybody coming in from the west end this morning would have thought, ' What's happened? Has the downtown closed, or what?' "

    By some accounts traffic was backed up along 102nd Street and Stony Plain Road as far west as 156th Street. East of the fork near 140th Street, there were traffic jams along both Stony Plain and 102nd Avenue.

    McCormick said the problem started at about 7:50 a.m. when the 102nd Avenue trolley line came down at the bridge across the Groat Road Ravine, west of 124th Street at Connaught Drive.

    "It hit the metal bridge," he said. "Epcor went out there, realized how serious it was and got the road closed."

    He said Epcor cut the power at 8:02 a.m., stranding trolleys along 102nd Avenue. The power returned at 9:37, after repairs.

    "It would have been a terrible mess," McCormick said. "Our councillors have called us and said, 'Hey what's going on here?' "

    [email protected]

    Edmonton Journal 2007

    -30-

  21. #121

    Default How is a trolley like a city councillor?

    How is a trolley like a city councillor?

    Bill Mah's Edmonton Journal Blog
    September 11, 2007


    Here I am. More than an hour late. My bus was stuck in a bad traffic jam. I hear some trolley lines went haywire.

    I think there was also an accident on a key bridge but I do know the trolley lines were kaput for sure.
    I saw a trolley bus sprawled uselessly on the side of the road near my bus stop, its line poles folded down like the ears of a guilty dog.

    Why does city council still allow the use of these trolley buses. They're aged, slow, high-maintenance and half the time they're broken down, out of touch with the current.

    Oh, wait, am I now talking about the trolleys or our councillors?

    Ah, now it all makes sense.

    Posted Tuesday, September 11, 2007 12:17 PM by Journal_Bill |

    -30-

  22. #122
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    76

    Default

    edited
    Learning without thought is labor lost; thought without learning is perilous.

  23. #123
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    76

    Default

    edited
    Learning without thought is labor lost; thought without learning is perilous.

  24. #124
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,153

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mohandas
    All the more reason to get rid of all of them!

    Benefits:

    Even using today's rough copper spot price of $3.70/pound, we could make alot of money towards the next LRT line. Say a rough AWG of 0=1.05Lb/m
    120 Km of trolley route through the city X 4 = 480000m of copper X 1.05Lb = 504000Lb X $3.70 = $1,864,800.

    And we get a clear view of the skies!

    Power plants burn less coal!

    We don't get stuck in traffic everytime one of these silly contraptions losses its track!

    No risk of being electrocuted to death when the cables fall onto the bridge you're driving on.

    It's about time we took this city back from the eco-extremists. These busses are a waste of time.
    Wow, a whole 1.8 million for the LRT extension. WOW congratulations on finding less than 1% of the total budget. All in exchange for decommissioning over a billion dollars worth of working infrastructure.

    Secondary congratulations on spending far more than 1.8 million taking down the overhead wiring. You have actually lost money on the project, if your intent for this to be a way to find capital for another project.

    This is the worst economics as a basis for taking down the system.

  25. #125
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    76

    Default

    edited
    Learning without thought is labor lost; thought without learning is perilous.

  26. #126

    Default

    My concern with Trolley's is the infrastructure cost of maintaining the lines, and also the reports that bus drivers are very unhappy with them (as always having to worry about overhead lines). It's not like we have a surplus of labor in this city.

    I also don't think it makes a lot of sense to make decisions like this now to expand trolleys, when we are seeing rapid technological change. Hybrids have only just come on the market. In the next 5 or 10 years, an electrified system could become obsolete overnight, if lithium ion technology arrives to eliminate the need for all those power lines. We don't want to put up something that will be pulled down soon after.

  27. #127
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    The Big E
    Posts
    1,205

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tdh5301-001
    The bus will need better heaters. In fact, apparently 6000 is only allowed out on days of -20 or warmer.
    Of course, ETS would probably spec draft doors!
    .
    That is laughable, considering that these new trolleybuses are made in Winnipeg.

  28. #128
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,153

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter
    My concern with Trolley's is the infrastructure cost of maintaining the lines, and also the reports that bus drivers are very unhappy with them (as always having to worry about overhead lines). It's not like we have a surplus of labor in this city.

    I also don't think it makes a lot of sense to make decisions like this now to expand trolleys, when we are seeing rapid technological change. Hybrids have only just come on the market. In the next 5 or 10 years, an electrified system could become obsolete overnight, if lithium ion technology arrives to eliminate the need for all those power lines. We don't want to put up something that will be pulled down soon after.
    That is fine, but the opposite should also be true. Do not take down the entire network on the promise of future or un-proven technology.
    The new generation of trolley busses addresses almost all the concerns listed above.

  29. #129

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DanC
    That is fine, but the opposite should also be true. Do not take down the entire network on the promise of future or un-proven technology.
    The new generation of trolley busses addresses almost all the concerns listed above.
    Agreed - probably more of an issue for expansion thread. As long as this is maintenance, rather than expansion, I don't see an issue with improved Trolley's (perhaps leased would be best given uncertainties?), subject to costs being reasonable relative to hybrid busses.

  30. #130
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeK
    That is laughable, considering that these new trolleybuses are made in Winnipeg.
    What does that have to with ANYTHING?
    Just because the bus is built in Winnipeg? You think that that dictates what features it has?
    And, for the record... the bus bodies are only built in Winnipeg.
    The finishing of the bus is completed in the US, in Minnesota I believe, before delivery to the property.
    The trolleys are a tad different, as they are sent back to Winnipeg for testing before being shipped west.

  31. #131
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mohandas
    Benefits:

    Even using today's rough copper spot price of $3.70/pound, we could make alot of money towards the next LRT line. Say a rough AWG of 0=1.05Lb/m
    120 Km of trolley route through the city X 4 = 480000m of copper X 1.05Lb = 504000Lb X $3.70 = $1,864,800.
    1.2 million. Good call. The city says it will cost $13 million to remove the trolley system. You'll end up spending over $11 million.

    And we get a clear view of the skies!
    I didn't get a clear view of the skies in Toronto... all of that smog...
    Lets prevent that from happening here...

    Power plants burn less coal!
    You honestly think that they will reduce the power production because the trolleys are shut down?
    Did they reduce power output in the past when there have been periods when trolleys haven't run?
    No.
    No risk of being electrocuted to death when the cables fell onto the bridge you're driving on.
    You're in a car with rubber ties...
    And the way the overhead is designed... any wire break should automatically shut the system down...
    It's about time we took this city back from the eco-extremists. These busses are a waste of time.
    Oddly, I don't recall an eco extremists fighting for the trolleybus system back in 2004.

  32. #132
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    6 degrees north of you
    Posts
    784

    Default

    So in line with mohandas way of thinking, we should
    pull down all visible power lines too, as one of them
    could fall on the ground and electrocute someone.
    Anyone want a candle to burn?

  33. #133
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    The Big E
    Posts
    1,205

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tdh5301-001

    What does that have to with ANYTHING?
    Just because the bus is built in Winnipeg? You think that that dictates what features it has?
    And, for the record... the bus bodies are only built in Winnipeg.
    The finishing of the bus is completed in the US, in Minnesota I believe, before delivery to the property.
    The trolleys are a tad different, as they are sent back to Winnipeg for testing before being shipped west.
    Thanks for the info!

  34. #134

    Default Re: How is a trolley like a city councillor?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Mah
    How is a trolley like a city councillor?

    Bill Mah's Edmonton Journal Blog
    September 11, 2007


    Here I am. More than an hour late. My bus was stuck in a bad traffic jam. I hear some trolley lines went haywire.

    I think there was also an accident on a key bridge but I do know the trolley lines were kaput for sure.
    I saw a trolley bus sprawled uselessly on the side of the road near my bus stop, its line poles folded down like the ears of a guilty dog.

    Why does city council still allow the use of these trolley buses. They're aged, slow, high-maintenance and half the time they're broken down, out of touch with the current.

    Oh, wait, am I now talking about the trolleys or our councillors?

    Ah, now it all makes sense.

    Posted Tuesday, September 11, 2007 12:17 PM by Journal_Bill |

    -30-
    On first reading I thought "oh brother, not again", but on second reading I realised, he's only attacking the current fleet and state of maintenance, not the system or the technology. Bill, you could make that a little more obvious.

    As for the disaster with the falling wires, this only emphasises that the lines, like the rest of the system, are victims of neglect. This was well known. The solution to neglect is obvious, no?

    Mohandas/RichardS:
    So which are you, anti-eco-extremist or anti-coal-fired-energy-use? You can't be both, can you?

  35. #135

    Default

    Mohandas is just trolling (or is it trolleying? ). It's fine to dislike trolleys, but let's stick to rational arguments.

    For example...
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter
    My concern with Trolley's is the infrastructure cost of maintaining the lines, and also the reports that bus drivers are very unhappy with them (as always having to worry about overhead lines). It's not like we have a surplus of labor in this city.
    As long as fuel prices stay relatively high, trolleys are cheaper to operate than diesels even accounting for the costs of maintaining the lines. In Vancouver, the 'fuel' price for a diesel bus is almost three times the cost of powering a trolley for the same distance.

    The expense associated with trolleys comes from the capital cost of new buses and expanding the lines. But, on the other hand, taking the wires down would entail a huge expense. So the quandary continues...

    As for driver preference, most drivers who dislike the trolleys dislike them because they're old, not because they're trolleys. As far as I know, most (if not all) drivers who have driven the new trolley have liked it.

    As for the incident on 102 Ave this morning, I believe the overhead at that location was damaged the previous day. If it wasn't repaired, that could have lead to today's trouble. At any rate, wires shouldn't be falling into the street--and they don't, in other cities.

    So the issue isn't the merit of trolleys per se, but of who's accountable for maintaining this city's infrastructure...

  36. #136
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    76

    Default

    edited
    Learning without thought is labor lost; thought without learning is perilous.

  37. #137
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter
    and also the reports that bus drivers are very unhappy with them (as always having to worry about overhead lines).
    Missed this one earlier...
    What I've heard most drivers don't like is the lack of power steering. Solved with a new bus.
    Drivers also seem to think the current trolleys are old. They are, but they are newer than almost every GM diesel in the fleet, and are just as old as the 4000 series GM's.
    Anyways, the drivers are paid to drive. It's not like it's a secret when they're hired. It's clearly stated in the job opportunities.
    Further, it all depends upon the training. If the drivers are properly trained on trolleys, no problem. If a new driver gets stuck with a trainer or AI who has a negative attitude towards trolleys, what do you think the new driver is going to think of trolleys?
    It actually seems that a lot of new drivers like the trolleys. Incidentally, a lot seem to be getting pro trolley AI's that know what their doing.

  38. #138

    Default

    Fair enough, you have convinced me. I was not aware that Trolleys are economic at the moment due to high oil prices, even taking into account line maintenance costs. Accordingly, I agree it makes sense to examine Trolley replacements for the existing system, and to maintain the current system for the time being.

    I am interested to see where hybrid technology goes - but that is related more to trolley route expansion rather than maintenance of the existing system.

  39. #139

    Default

    Practical reasons why I think trolley buses ought to be phased out.

    Tuesday, Sept. 11.
    Graham Hicks Blog


    Traffic from the west end is snarled up all morning rush hour, due to a trolley bus power line falling on a steel bridge (the one that crosses Groat Road Ravine, just east of the provincial museum on 102 Ave.)

    EPCOR had to cut the power to the overhead lines - stranding trolleys on 102 Avenue for 1.5 hours.

    -30-

  40. #140

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by microbus
    So in line with mohandas way of thinking, we should
    pull down all visible power lines too, as one of them
    could fall on the ground and electrocute someone.
    Anyone want a candle to burn?
    If I recall correctly, Calgary made a decision probably a decade ago to relocate all of its power lines from above ground to under ground. Everyone keeps saying that the Calgary / Edmonton rivalry should come to an end...and...imitation is the sincerest form of flattery so...
    City Centre Airport is to the sky as False Creek is to the ocean.

  41. #141

    Default

    Lux:
    Let me know when Calgary is to put their LRT wires underground.

    In fairness to what you say though, I don't mind if we put power cables underground. I just don't think we should be removing power cables.

    Calgary, like most North American cities, made a mistake by removing their trolley system, and as fuel prices continue to evolve and public health continues to rise in public consciousness, a lot more cities will shortly be building new trolley systems.

    The pendulum has already swung back in favour of trolleys in Europe and Asia. Cities from Rome to Beijing are building trolley systems for the first time right now. If Edmonton removed its system now to imitate and flatter Calgary, we would likely be the last city to do so before the pendulum swings in North America too (which it already arguably did with Vancouver's reinforced commitment.) Would that not make us look like complete nincompoops?

    I'd rather imitate and flatter Zurich, Geneva, and Vancouver (the top three cities in the world on Mercer's list) than Calgary.

  42. #142
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    132

    Default

    Another update:

    Revision 2



    Change(s)
    Route 9A and 9B extended to Castle Downs TC.
    -9A to run at 30 min. freq. throughout the service hours.
    -9B to only operate during weekday (am/pm peak, midday and early evening) and Saturday daytime hours


    Route- #of ETB's
    1- 10
    2- 12
    3- 10
    4- 16
    5- 13
    6- 10
    7- 8
    8- 20
    9A,9B- 15
    96- 3
    100- 14
    116- 3
    120- 6
    140- 6
    200A/B-26 (Downtown-Whyte Loop)
    SEBRT- 12
    _________
    Total 184

    Trolleybus network extensions in greater detail (revision 1):


    Affected/new trolley routes:
    <Route Origin to Destination - AM-PM peak - Midday - Early Eve.>

    First Extension: Northgate, 102 St (one way from MacDonald Dr. to 102 Ave)

    9A
    South Campus to Northgate - 30 - 30 - 30
    (via Parkallen)
    South Campus to 109 St/83 Ave - 15 - 30 - 30
    (via Parkallen)
    Rossdale to NAIT - 7/8 - 30 - 30
    9B
    Belgravia to Northgate - 30 - 30 - 30
    Belgravia to 109St/83Ave - 15 - 30 - 30
    7
    Jasper Place to Rossdale - 15 - 30 - 30
    133
    discontinue.
    134
    Northgate to Downtown - 15 - 30 - N/A
    140
    Northgate to Downtown (via Chinatown) - 30 - 15 - N/A

    After LRT extension to NAIT:

    9A
    South Campus to Northgate - 30 - 30 - 30
    (via Parkallen)
    South Campus to 109 St/83 Ave - 15 - 30 - 30
    (via Parkallen)
    Rossdale to NAIT - discontinue
    9B
    Belgravia to Northgate - 30 - 30 - 30
    (via Spruce Avenue)
    Belgravia to 109St/83Ave - 15 - 30 - 30
    134 (express)
    Northgate to NAIT - 10 - 15 - 30
    140
    Northgate to Downtown (via Chinatown) - 15 - 15 - N/A

    After LRT extension to Northgate:
    Short extension to Castle Downs via Griesbach Rd.

    9A
    South Campus to Castle Downs - 30 - 30 - 30
    (via Parkallen)
    South Campus to 109St/83Ave - 15 - 30 - 30
    (via Parkallen)
    Rossdale to NAIT - discontinue
    9B
    Belgravia to Castle Downs - 30 - 30 - 30
    (via Spruce Avenue)
    Belgravia to 109 St/83 Ave - 15 - 30 - 30
    134 (express)
    discontinue
    140
    Downtown to NAIT - 15 - 15 - N/A

    Second Extension: West Edmonton Mall (via 156 St, Meadowlark and 87 Ave) (Two sets of lines), 80 St, 102 Ave (from 111 St to 121 St with bus-priority signals)

    1 (West portion)
    West Edmonton Mall to Downtown - 15 - 15 - 15
    3
    West Edmonton Mall to Coliseum - 15 - 30 - 30
    100 (non-stop super express) - (articulated trolleys)
    (via 102 Ave from 111 St to 121 St)
    West Edmonton Mall to Downtown - 8/15 - 30 - 30

    After LRT extension to WEM:
    dismantle 'express' overhead from Meadowlark to WEM

    1 (West portion)
    Meadowlark to Downtown - 15 - 15 - 15
    3
    West Edmonton Mall to Coliseum - 15 - 30 - 30
    100 (express with stops at 116 St, 124 St, RAM, 142 St, Jasper Place and Meadowlark)
    Meadowlark to Downtown - 15 - 30 - 30

    After BRT to Lewis Estates opens for service:
    dismantle 'express' overhead along 102 Ave

    100 (non-stop super express) - (articulated trolleys)
    discontinue


    Third Extension: Mill Woods TC (Two sets of lines), MacEwan CCC, Abbotsfield

    8
    Mill Woods TC to Abbotsfield - 15 - 15 - 15
    Millgate to Abbotsfield - 8/15 - 15 - 15
    Mill Woods BRT - (articulated trolleys)
    Mill Woods TC to MacEwan CCC - 7/8 - 10 - 15

    After LRT extension to NAIT:

    8
    Mill Woods TC to Abbotsfield - 15 - 15 - 30
    Millgate to Downtown - 8/15 - 15 - 15
    Abbotsfield to NAIT - 8/15 - 15 - 15
    Mill Woods BRT - (articulated trolleys)
    Mill Woods TC to Downtown - 5 - 10 - 15


    Fourth Extension (Downtown/Strathcona hybrid DE41LF loop already in service due to densification): University, Whyte Avenue, Capilano, Forrest Heights (Rowland Rd - 79 St - 101 Ave - 50 St)

    1
    Capilano to Meadowlark (interlink with 4) - 15 - 15 - 15
    4 (East Portion)
    Capilano to University (interlink with 1) - 15 - 15 - 15
    Bonnie Doon to University - 5 - 15 - 15


    Fifth Extension (after LRT extension to WEM): Stony Plain Rd-104 Avenue (Two sets of lines), 107 St (Jasper Ave to 104 Ave), 149 Street, Lessard

    2
    Highlands - West Edmonton Mall - 15 - 30 - 30
    3
    Meadowlark to Coliseum - 15 - 30 - 30
    100 - West BRT (via 104 Avenue/Stony Plain Road, express with stops at 116 St, 124 St, 142 St, Jasper Place and Meadowlark)
    (non-express from Meadowlark to West Edmonton Mall)
    Marketplace at Callingwood to Downtown - 15 - 15 - 15
    116
    (West portion of diesel Route 4 can provide coverage of Rio Terrace)
    Meadowlark to Downtown - 30 - N/A - N/A


    Sixth Extension: 99 St (from Whyte Ave to Low Level Bridge), 107 St (from 99 Ave to Jasper Ave, incl. Govt Centre), one way overhead (from 105 St/River Valley Road - 96 Ave - 107 St), one way overhead (from 96 Ave/107 St - 106 St - 97 Ave.)

    Whyte-Downtown loop
    Clockwise and counterclockwise loop service - 7/8 - 10 - 15
    (Diesel Route 6 terminates at 109 St/83 Ave)


    Seventh Extension: 51 Ave (from Millgate to Southgate) (Two sets of lines), 111 St (from Southgate to 61 Ave), 113/114 St to University (via South Campus station)

    6
    Mill Woods to 109 St/83 Ave - 15 - 30 - N/A
    Millgate to 109 St/83 Ave - 15 - 30 - 30
    Mill Woods to Southgate - 15 - 15 - N/A
    Millgate to Southgate - 15 - 15 - 15
    96 (express with stops at Lakewood and Millgate) - (articulated trolleys)
    Mill Woods to Southgate - 30 - 30 - N/A


    Eighth Extension: 50 St (from Highlands to Clareview),

    2
    Clareview - West Edmonton Mall - 15 - 15 - 30


    Trolley routes after 8 extensions: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9A, 9B, 96, 100 (West BRT route), 116, 120, 140, Whyte-Downtown loop and Millwoods BRT
    Future discontinued routes: 133 (to merge with 7), 134, 135 (to merge with 5)
    Conclusion: 16 utilized routes.
    No. of trolleybuses required: 184 + ~10 for rotational maintenance.

  43. #143

    Default

    Rico's host doesn't like cross posting pictures, so I have rehosted it...


  44. #144

    Default

    Again, three cheers for this incredible effort. I dearly hope that by studying it and considering it, more people will realise what trolleys can do for the city.

    I like the extension to Castledowns. I think it would easily enable the Griesbach development to switch gears to a higher density, but it's probably too late for that. Nonetheless, Castledowns is an appropriate collector.

  45. #145

    Default

    I've posted this elsewhere, but it really belongs here:


    (taken from the document http://www.vossloh-kiepe.com/files/d...__Genf_497.pdf )

    What say you all?

    I think it's right on the mark about how trolleys displace everything except trams in the medium-high density range for all the distances within Edmonton (and thus exactly where RicoLance21 has put it.)

  46. #146
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    282

    Default

    Well if it's cheaper (overall), more environmentally friendly, and we need to do maintenance on the wires anyways... why has the city been discouraging and reducing trolley service? Why not make use of existing infrastructure to lower operating expenses - maybe even use the extra money saved to improve existing service.
    Are we even using half of our fleet of trolley buses as is?

    I don't know much about that new trolley bus talked about but one would think after a couple of decades it might actually have power steering and maybe even a little more energy efficient too. I believe they're low floor so that's a huge bonus.

    Anyone know what the lifetime on our existing trolley buses are?

    Regarding the trolley power line falling - maybe if the city didn't neglect it there wouldn't be an issue.

  47. #147
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    132

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee
    Again, three cheers for this incredible effort. I dearly hope that by studying it and considering it, more people will realise what trolleys can do for the city.

    I like the extension to Castledowns. I think it would easily enable the Griesbach development to switch gears to a higher density, but it's probably too late for that. Nonetheless, Castledowns is an appropriate collector.
    Most of the planned medium density residential is concentrated along Griesbach Rd.

  48. #148
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bryguy
    Well if it's cheaper (overall), more environmentally friendly, and we need to do maintenance on the wires anyways... why has the city been discouraging and reducing trolley service?
    Well, I wouldn't say that the City's been discouraging it. In fact, back in 1993 Edmonton Transit was told to maxamize use of the trolley bus system. Instead, half of our trolleybuses are not in service, and a few portions of our overhead network are not in use, nor are other section used to their maximum. The problems has been certain elements within the city. As some of you might know, as I understand it, ETS doesn't own their buses. Mobile Equipment Service's (MES) does. MES is also responsible for the maintenance, garaging, fueling etc of the bus fleet. Essentially, ETS provides scheduling, drivers and other stuff like that. However, ETS does do all the work on the LRT fleet. I was told MES was given the choice of taking the LRT fleet as well, but chose on to. The push back in 2003/04 to get rid of the trolleybuses did come in part from MES. They just don't seem to want to deal with anything other than diesel buses. The former manager Transit, Wayne Mandryk, and former manager of Transportation and Street's, Rick Millican both didn't seem to keen on running trolleybuses. Maybe it was bit of extra work for them. Who knows. On a related note... does anyone know what Rick Millican does now?
    Anyone know what the lifetime on our existing trolley buses are?
    They're 25 years old now. We've had GM's run until they were nearly 40, and currently run GM's that are 35 years old.
    The trolleys have more life in them.
    FWIW, the US governement provides bus funding based upon a 12 year life cycle of a diesel bus, and 18 year for a trolley.
    Regarding the trolley power line falling - maybe if the city didn't neglect it there wouldn't be an issue.
    Well, it's going to happen. It's just how you manage it.
    I've heard of how Vancouver responds to these incidents... It's no big deal. Get a crew out, push buses/ use APU's, put the wire up and they're done.
    I once heard of a trolley pole getting snagged in the overhead, and ripped off the top of the bus. I live in Mill Woods, this happened at 107 Ave and 156 St. during the evening. I took the bus from my house to that location and beat the EPCOR crew there.
    Unfortunately, EPCOR doesn't seem to have a great response time. There isn't a trolley crew on all the time when trolleys operate. If there's a wire break and the trolley crew is off, that usually means an EPCOR trouble crew will clean it up, but leave it for the regular trolley crew to fix up later on. Things would be more efficent if we had a larger system (justification for having a larger line crew section). As well, Edmonton has that nasty habit of dieselizing for weeks at a time, or only running 1-2 trolley routes instead of 6... Which no other city does. What do the line crews do then?
    Fortunately, we do have trolley crews out during weekdays. I don't believe there is ever a line crew on standby for the LRT... so if there's ever a break on the LRT system they have to some of them up. I believe that the trolley crew can respond to LRT problems.

  49. #149
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,385

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS
    Quote Originally Posted by Modulator42
    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS
    #6000? I followed that Translink loaner along Jasper. Yes, the acceleration was pretty good, but it STILL had that migraine inducing whine.
    You live up to your 'grumpy' tag line . Our new LRT cars, incidentally, will have a similar whine. I prefer the noise of a trolley--it's quieter than the rumble of a diesel engine--but to each his own, I suppose.
    That high pitched squeal is worse than a 2 year old girl trying to annoy her Dad. The lower pitch rumble is not nearly as offensive.

    Yes, electrics accelerate better. Yes, I prefer the flat torque curve of an electric.

    However, I am still not 100% convinced the trolley is the answer. After all, I have a coal-belching plant in my backyard as testiment to how "clean" this is...
    Well, these trolleys are equiped with a generator that can power the bus when it goes offline or when the power shuts down. The generator can actually put power back into the grid system. So these trolleys are very power-conservative.

    I like them and I hope they stay.

  50. #150

    Default

    All the better to have the trolley route there then. I just lament the possibility that there could have been something much higher density, a'la Century Park. I think the megatrolleys could support TODs quite nicely.

  51. #151
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    McKernan, Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12

    Default

    So like trolleys, our LRT system is also powered by the same coal burning plant. Should we get rid of the LRT too?

  52. #152
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,432
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    That was a logical leap. Who said "get rid" of trolleys? When did I say get rid of them. All I have ever said is that they are not the end all be all love them forever solution to the transit question. They have a place.

    All I am saying here is that the argument of " trolleys are cleaner that diesel" is based on where you physically are in the argument. That rattling diesel may not be in front of your house, but the coal plant is near mine.
    Since calm logic doesn't work, I guess it is time to employ sarcasm. ...and before you call me an a-hole...remember, I am a Dick.

  53. #153
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,432
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisD
    [
    . The generator can actually put power back into the grid system. So these trolleys are very power-conservative.
    Yes, the newer trolleys have a backup generator that makes them at least self sufficient should the power go down. However, putting power back into the system is quite a stretch. Physically possible, but practically silly. You're going to run a fossil fuel generator constantly to put the very power back into the grid that you'll consume moving the bus? We put the infrastructure in place to get a net 0 benefit in the pollution equation, and a net 0 benefit to the grid? Even if we got a net benefit (and a small one at that), you're still burning something.

    In that case, buy a diesel. If you want to add small portions of power to the grid, buy a windmill or solar panels for your house.

    At best, due to weight and space constraints, you'd want that generator to power that bus with enough juice to get it operational in an emergency or outage.
    Since calm logic doesn't work, I guess it is time to employ sarcasm. ...and before you call me an a-hole...remember, I am a Dick.

  54. #154
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    McKernan, Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS
    That was a logical leap. Who said "get rid" of trolleys? When did I say get rid of them. All I have ever said is that they are not the end all be all love them forever solution to the transit question. They have a place.

    All I am saying here is that the argument of " trolleys are cleaner that diesel" is based on where you physically are in the argument. That rattling diesel may not be in front of your house, but the coal plant is near mine.
    That comment wasn't directed at you. Many people that I speak with regarding trolleys, like to use the "coal fired plant" as an argument though. Trolleys are cleaner when it comes to in street emissions, and that's what matters really. The amount of cars and trucks on the road easily make up for the zero in street emissions of the trolleys though. :P

    I do agree that trolleys are not the be all end all of transit, and the environment for that matter. I'm just rather tired of this ongoing debate about trolleys. Either **** or get off the pot already.

  55. #155
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Esturk
    So like trolleys, our LRT system is also powered by the same coal burning plant. Should we get rid of the LRT too?
    When given the option of a clean electric vehicle versus one powered by an internal combustion engine, I would prefer the electric - regardless of the means of generating the electricity. Simply put, it's much easier to control one power source than it is to control thousands of exhaust pipes.

    Further, you seem to think all power is generated by coal fired plants - there are many other options, if you care to think a moment one or two might even occur to you.

  56. #156
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    McKernan, Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dwells
    Quote Originally Posted by Esturk
    So like trolleys, our LRT system is also powered by the same coal burning plant. Should we get rid of the LRT too?
    Further, you seem to think all power is generated by coal fired plants - there are many other options, if you care to think a moment one or two might even occur to you.
    I never said that all power was generated by coal. Where did I say that? Of course there are many other options like natural gas, solar, wind, hydro, nuclear.. etc.

  57. #157
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,432
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    dwells, over 80% of our power comes from coal. At least 2 - 3 more 450+ MW units are either planned or well underway. 'nuff said.

    Diesel or not, the primary environmental effect of transit is to take 30, 50, or whatever theoretical capacity, single occupant vehicles off the road. In that case, I'll take an efficient transit system of diesels over no transit system at all.
    Since calm logic doesn't work, I guess it is time to employ sarcasm. ...and before you call me an a-hole...remember, I am a Dick.

  58. #158
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Esturk
    Quote Originally Posted by dwells
    Quote Originally Posted by Esturk
    So like trolleys, our LRT system is also powered by the same coal burning plant. Should we get rid of the LRT too?
    Further, you seem to think all power is generated by coal fired plants - there are many other options, if you care to think a moment one or two might even occur to you.
    I never said that all power was generated by coal. Where did I say that?
    powered by the same coal burning plant.
    Quote Originally Posted by Esturk
    Of course there are many other options like natural gas, solar, wind, hydro, nuclear.. etc.
    Exactly. The trolleys are powered by electricity regardless of the source of that electricity. Dissing the trolleys because 80% (?) of today's electricity is generated by burning coal is to take an unnecessarily narrow view of our potential use of more eco-friendly generating facilities.

  59. #159
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,432
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dwells
    Exactly. The trolleys are powered by electricity regardless of the source of that electricity. Dissing the trolleys because 80% (?) of today's electricity is generated by burning coal is to take an unnecessarily narrow view of our potential use of more eco-friendly generating facilities.
    Two words...HELL NO. It is all fine and dandy to say "oh let's build X or Y or Z". Well, they aren't being built. So unless you have the 3+ billion dollars to build a nuke, or have invented a reliable wind source, or have a solar panel that can produce more than power to charge a battery, or have come up woith an efficient mass storage device to capture wind, lightening, etc, so that peak demands or fluctuations can be accomodated, then don't even begin to spout of about other sources. We as a public demand reliability and avialability. We demand a source that can fluctuate with our demands. People are buggy about nukes still. So, guess what, since NG is expensive, hello sons of Wabamun.

    It is in no way narrow. It is reality.

    Nuke is a ways off. Plus, it has that unfortunate heavy water waste issue.

    Solar has a lot, and I mean a LOT of research left to do before it can even come close to steam powered generation. What are we going to do, put a township of land under a magnifying glass just to power Stony Plain?

    Wind is in a word, unreliable as per the amount of power it can continuously and predictably put on the grid. Right now, it is supplimental at best. I am a fan of wind, but just now they are coming up with ~5MW generators and there is a ~10MW one on the books. Still a generation or two off.

    Geothermal...yeah right. Put a plant on a fault line...

    Hydro, ok, where are we going to dam again?

    Tidal has promise...but again, storage anyone?

    Face it, coal will power electricity for at least another 3 - 4 generations. It is abundant, cheap (even when you factor in mning, transportation, and disposal of ash), and reliable. So, to omit the generation source from the pollution equation is far more myopic when you insert platitudes of "there are other sources", when those sources won't be fully online 'till we are long since pushing dasies. Coal has come a long way, but it is still burning something.

    Funny how people like to ignore generation sources unless it is a huge blue aluminum box in your backyard with 2 400'+ stacks belching into the sky...oh, and the 3 am safety valve roars are so much fun. You don't care, then let me know where you live folks. Not your house, but I'll even give you a 10 mile radius. Then, TAU and EPCOR can JV another 1200 MW plant, and we'll put it in sight of you. Hopefully upwind, but there are no guarantees. Love your trolley then...

    Again, transit in its core is to provide efficient service to get us out of our single occupant vehicles. Make this an efficient system and people will ride it. Make them take 4 hours to cross the city, and thanks but no thanks.

    I'll still take 1 diesel stack over 50 cars. You can insert the trolley where it makes sense - mainly on high load static routes, like the 5...

    The 100 Express, the 2, and the 1 are good candidates.

    For other more dynamic changes in routes and capacities, hello a flexible un-teathered vehicle. NGV, diesel, gas, be fanciful and say Hydrogen, whatever.

    Then, for your spine that you plan everything around, get rail.

    Our target should be bums in seats, not Ohh pretty.
    Since calm logic doesn't work, I guess it is time to employ sarcasm. ...and before you call me an a-hole...remember, I am a Dick.

  60. #160
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS
    Two words...HELL NO. It is all fine and dandy to say "oh let's build X or Y or Z". Well, they aren't being built.
    What are you talking about?

    I can understand what you are saying, but in the context of my response to Esturk it seems way out in left field.

    There was another part which you may have missed where I said:
    Quote Originally Posted by dwells
    When given the option of a clean electric vehicle versus one powered by an internal combustion engine, I would prefer the electric - regardless of the means of generating the electricity. Simply put, it's much easier to control one power source than it is to control thousands of exhaust pipes.
    That sounds much like what you said:
    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS
    I'll still take 1 diesel stack over 50 cars. You can insert the trolley where it makes sense - mainly on high load static routes
    Sure, I'll take one diesel bus over many cars, but given the right circumstance, I'll take a trolley over a diesel - regardless of the energy source - and I think it is wrong to diss electric vehicles because coal is today's fuel of choice for generating plants.

  61. #161
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,432
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    I guess I am annoyed at another thread...and that spilled over here...sorry..

    I am not dissing electric vehicles. Please don't think I am. I am more trying, maybe unsucessfully, to say that in the holistic pollution equation trolleys are not innocent - yet.

    My concerns are about deployment and ease, and I interject with the pollution bit only because the whole equation should be placed on the table.
    Since calm logic doesn't work, I guess it is time to employ sarcasm. ...and before you call me an a-hole...remember, I am a Dick.

  62. #162
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS
    Yes, the newer trolleys have a backup generator that makes them at least self sufficient should the power go down. However, putting power back into the system is quite a stretch. Physically possible, but practically silly. You're going to run a fossil fuel generator constantly to put the very power back into the grid that you'll consume moving the bus?
    I don't understand what you're talking about with running a fossil fuel generator to put power into the overhead.

    Lets review trolleybus technology (LRT, streetcar technology too).

    ETS #6000 persently on trial has an Emergency Power Unit (EPU), as Vancouver calls it. Often they are called auxillary power units (APU's).
    It uses a battery that is charged from the overhead wire to provide a power supply when the bus is not able to use the overhead wire for power.

    Philidelphia is getting an APU which consists of a small diesel generator that would be run to provide power to the motor. Same basic idea a hybrid bus. This potentially has greater range, only being limited by the size of the fuel tank.
    While Philidelphia's is meant as back up power, some cities put technology like this to greater use. Boston operates a fleet of articulated buses that are powered by an electric motor. When the bus operates underwire, it's collectes electricity from overhead wire. When it's running out on the streets, it uses it's diesel engine to generate power for the electric motor.

    Both technologies are common on trolleybus systems world wide.

    Regenerative breaking causes the electric motor to act as a generator. This slows down the vehicle without using friction brakes. Electricity is generated as a result. In older vehicles, this was disappared through resistors. Technology now allows that power to be fed back into the overhead wire, to be utilized by another vehicle.
    With a hybrid bus, this engery is routed back to the batteries and in theory helps to reduce fuel consumption as the engine doesn't need to generate that bit of energy.

  63. #163
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    132

    Default

    Additional trolleybus route to consider:

    <Route Origin to Destination - AM-PM peak - Midday - Early Eve.>

    Route 81 (combine Route 71 portion from Mill Woods to Millgate and merge Routes 81 and 87 from Millgate to Old Strathcona). Extension to downtown not needed since it can be well covered by the Downtown-Whyte loop. One third of the route requires overhead extension if Route 4 and 8 are trolley routes.

    Mill Woods to Strathcona - 15 - 30 - N/A
    Millgate to Strathcona - 15 - 30 - 30

    Please comment whether or not this route be feasible enough to electrify.

  64. #164
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Victoria
    Posts
    582

    Default

    hi. very cool ideas being thrown around in this thread, but just one suggestion: let's call them "streetcars" not "trolleys"

  65. #165
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    653

    Default

    I'm going to have to vote for tram.

  66. #166
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Victoria
    Posts
    582

    Default

    ok. anything but trolley.

  67. #167

    Default

    What's wrong with "trolley?"

    Whatever word we use to describe it, the basic technology is still better than any alternative on several routes, in several frames of reference.

  68. #168
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    653

    Default

    I assumed he was saying we should go fixed rail, but I'm quite possibly wrong.

  69. #169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RicoLance21
    Additional trolleybus route to consider:

    <Route Origin to Destination - AM-PM peak - Midday - Early Eve.>

    Route 81 (combine Route 71 portion from Millwoods to Millgate and merge Routes 81 and 87 from Millgate to Old Strathcona). Extension to downtown not needed since it can be well covered by the Downtown-Whyte loop. One third of the route requires overhead extension if Route 4 and 8 are trolley routes.

    Millwoods to Strathcona - 15 - 30 - N/A
    Millgate to Strathcona - 15 - 30 - 30

    Please comment whether or not this route be feasible enough to electrify.
    Could you put that in terms of streets and avenues? I'm not familiar with the route 81. My mind works more in terms of the overall shapes of the complete network with the shapes of the population centres and population draws.

  70. #170
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    132

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee
    Quote Originally Posted by RicoLance21
    Additional trolleybus route to consider:

    <Route Origin to Destination - AM-PM peak - Midday - Early Eve.>

    Route 81 (combine Route 71 portion from Millwoods to Millgate and merge Routes 81 and 87 from Millgate to Old Strathcona). Extension to downtown not needed since it can be well covered by the Downtown-Whyte loop. One third of the route requires overhead extension if Route 4 and 8 are trolley routes.

    Millwoods to Strathcona - 15 - 30 - N/A
    Millgate to Strathcona - 15 - 30 - 30

    Please comment whether or not this route be feasible enough to electrify.
    Could you put that in terms of streets and avenues? I'm not familiar with the route 81. My mind works more in terms of the overall shapes of the complete network with the shapes of the population centres and population draws.

    Here it goes:
    Mill Woods Transit Centre > Hewes Way > 28 Ave > Lakewood Rd N > Millwoods Rd > 36 Ave > Millbourne Rd E > 38 Ave > 76 St > Millgate Transit Centre

    http://www.edmonton.ca/transit/route...rent/RT071.pdf

    Millgate Transit Centre > 86 St > 66 Ave > 96 St > Whyte Ave > 100 St

    http://www.edmonton.ca/transit/route...rent/RT081.pdf

    83 Ave > 99 St > 76 Ave > 96 St > follow the same route all the way down to Mill Woods Transit Centre

    Note: much of the stretch between Mill Woods and Millgate have trolley infrastructure in place if Route 8 is a trolley route.

  71. #171
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    132

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mark
    hi. very cool ideas being thrown around in this thread, but just one suggestion: let's call them "streetcars" not "trolleys"
    I do like the streetcar idea, but I think it is way too costly to maintain and take up a lot of space, let alone the cost of building them. Not only the streetcar routes have to be very frequent, but to be relatively short. The only route that I think could be feasible is the Jasper Ave/Whyte Ave Loop and nothing else.

  72. #172
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RicoLance21
    Additional trolleybus route to consider:

    <Route Origin to Destination - AM-PM peak - Midday - Early Eve.>

    Route 81 (combine Route 71 portion from Mill Woods to Millgate and merge Routes 81 and 87 from Millgate to Old Strathcona). Extension to downtown not needed since it can be well covered by the Downtown-Whyte loop. One third of the route requires overhead extension if Route 4 and 8 are trolley routes.

    Mill Woods to Strathcona - 15 - 30 - N/A
    Millgate to Strathcona - 15 - 30 - 30

    Please comment whether or not this route be feasible enough to electrify.
    I would say no. There's a considerable amount of trolley infrastructre that would be required in Mill Woods. The 71 has good ridership... but... it is still 30 min midday frequency, 15 minute peak. Trolleybus routes should have minimum 15 minute service most of the time. Especially to justify putting in wire. And, don't get me wrong.... I would love trolleys on the that portion of the 71... it runs by my house
    Of course, the 71 is also an express route.
    Incidentally, the old, old route 176 (peak hour version of the 76 which covered the present route 71 through Mill Woods) ran along the current 87 routing after Millgate.
    Prior to the 71's current routing, the 67 covered that route in Mill Woods, and during peak hours would interline with the 87 at Millgate.
    I just can't see that this idea would be feasible.
    As for streetcars... I don't see why streetcar routes would need to be short. Many of Toronto's are not.
    Yes, there are additional costs to running streetcars, as there are additional costs to run trolleybuses compared to a diesel bus. One of the advantage though is the number of passengers your able to carry with a streetcar. Just like LRT. A lot of new streetcar operations today utlize private right of ways, essentially what we are used to seeing with LRT. As an example, sure, we could run a busway with diesel buses between Clareview and Downtown, but it is not the best option. The best option has beeen LRT. Each mode of public transit has it's own place where it is the best option under certain conditions.

  73. #173
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,432
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Can I ask one question of the trolley advocates?

    Will these new trolleys be able to navigate the switches better? Will they not have to come to a crawl every time there is a slight change in the wires? I follow a couple trolleys on 107th ave, and there is no end to my frustration as these old pieces of crap derail, slow down unexpectedly, or shower me with sparks.

    If it is more of the same, I vote diesel.
    Since calm logic doesn't work, I guess it is time to employ sarcasm. ...and before you call me an a-hole...remember, I am a Dick.

  74. #174
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    132

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS
    Can I ask one question of the trolley advocates?

    Will these new trolleys be able to navigate the switches better? Will they not have to come to a crawl every time there is a slight change in the wires? I follow a couple trolleys on 107th ave, and there is no end to my frustration as these old pieces of crap derail, slow down unexpectedly, or shower me with sparks.

    If it is more of the same, I vote diesel.
    I am not an expert on trolleybuses, but I heard the poles from New Flyer are designed differently to handle intersections at somewhat higher speeds. Generally, trolleybuses can not rip through special work at full speed no matter how good both the poles and infrastructure are. However, I think certain K&M special work can handle speeds of 60 kph without de-wiring. I could be wrong though. Could someone please enlighten me if I am?

  75. #175
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RicoLance21
    Quote Originally Posted by mark
    hi. very cool ideas being thrown around in this thread, but just one suggestion: let's call them "streetcars" not "trolleys"
    I do like the streetcar idea, but I think it is way too costly to maintain and take up a lot of space, let alone the cost of building them. Not only the streetcar routes have to be very frequent, but to be relatively short. The only route that I think could be feasible is the Jasper Ave/Whyte Ave Loop and nothing else.
    I'd love to see a few streetcar routes.

    The best options, in my humble opinion, would be a whyte ave route from Bonnydoon to the U of A, The High level Car extended west down Jasper Ave to 124st, and a 118 Ave route from Nait/Kingsway LRT to Coloseum to Abbotsfield (#.


    Longer routes are possible, but the problems that they have in toronto is that sections of the routes get congested and vehicles bunch up. Busses are a little bit better at dealing with congestion because they can pass stalls and each other, but the main difference is that our longer bus routes tend to have multiple timing points throughout the route that are used to adjust to schedule, but cost passengers time, especially if the bus that they are on is early. In my opinion, where a timing point is also a major all day destination and transfer point, the route might as well end there.

    Our long bus routes are seldom used for end to end trips, especially where they transfer with LRT. #8 goes 1 block from my house and 1 block from my work, but it is always better for me to transfer to the LRT, go downtown and walk 4 long blocks to work instead, because the #8 loses time at transfer Kingsway and at Coliseum, as well as in traffic.

  76. #176
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    6 degrees north of you
    Posts
    784

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS
    Can I ask one question of the trolley advocates?

    Will these new trolleys be able to navigate the switches better? Will they not have to come to a crawl every time there is a slight change in the wires? I follow a couple trolleys on 107th ave, and there is no end to my frustration as these old pieces of crap derail, slow down unexpectedly, or shower me with sparks.

    If it is more of the same, I vote diesel.
    Part of the problem along 107th Ave is that the trolley wires
    are old. The newer 'speed wire' allows trolley buses to take
    bends a bit faster, as the wiring is designed to 'give' a bit
    more than the old rigid design.
    Check the bends around the cemetery, and you'll notice
    they're rigid. Then go check the bends at the circle-with-the-lights
    on 118/Groat, and you'll see the design has some give to it.
    Then add new trolley buses with better designed shoes, and
    a modern retriever system, and you'll probably find that
    they'll derail less than half as often.

  77. #177
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,891

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander
    ...I'd love to see a few streetcar routes...
    would any of the bicycle riders care to comment on how much they would love to see streetcar tracks added to the landscape?
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  78. #178
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    653

    Default

    Depends where they are. If they're right down a designated bike route, then obviously there will be problems.

    I'd like to see it as more of a median strip, Bilbao type arrangement; admittedly, very similar to the existing LRT.

  79. #179
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor
    Quote Originally Posted by highlander
    ...I'd love to see a few streetcar routes...
    would any of the bicycle riders care to comment on how much they would love to see streetcar tracks added to the landscape?
    I am a daily cyclist, and I know the problem that tracks can be, but they don't need to be.

    Most streetcar suitable streets are already inhospitable to cyclists. Most of the routes I mentioned have better cycle routes available.
    As bagould mentioned, centre lane streetcar (ROW or not) would have much less conflict with cyclists than curb lane.

    Newer track is usually better, too, with narrower slots to fall into, and unlike Toronto's aged system there wouldn't be miles of track that's not used except for detours, and there would be far fewer switches and track intersections with wide gaps. There are even products that fill the gap so that bikes can't fall in, but the weight of streetcar wheels pushes aside. And if you need to bike on a streetcar street, in the streetcar lane, you would have an excuse for not biking right at the curb, and cars would be used to moving over.

  80. #180
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    653

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander
    As bagould mentioned, centre lane streetcar (ROW or not) would have much less conflict with cyclists than curb lane.
    I would prefer inside lane from a biking standpoint, but it's worse from a transit riding standpoint. In fact, I'd like to revise my position to include that I'd rather it was separated from the road completely, thereby solving the bicycling problem entirely.

    I do tend to bike agressively (by the book legally, interpreted by drivers as being insane) as well, so the last thing I need when trying to make a legal left turn at a busy intersection is to snag a rail.

  81. #181
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,432
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by microbus

    Part of the problem along 107th Ave is that the trolley wires
    are old. The newer 'speed wire' allows trolley buses to take
    bends a bit faster, as the wiring is designed to 'give' a bit
    more than the old rigid design.
    Check the bends around the cemetery, and you'll notice
    they're rigid. Then go check the bends at the circle-with-the-lights
    on 118/Groat, and you'll see the design has some give to it.
    Then add new trolley buses with better designed shoes, and
    a modern retriever system, and you'll probably find that
    they'll derail less than half as often.
    OK, I can look this evening on my way home.

    However, if we are now having to re-wire a significant portion of the grid...didn't my infrastructure costs just skyrocket?
    Since calm logic doesn't work, I guess it is time to employ sarcasm. ...and before you call me an a-hole...remember, I am a Dick.

  82. #182
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,891

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS
    Quote Originally Posted by microbus

    Part of the problem along 107th Ave is that the trolley wires
    are old. The newer 'speed wire' allows trolley buses to take
    bends a bit faster, as the wiring is designed to 'give' a bit
    more than the old rigid design.
    Check the bends around the cemetery, and you'll notice
    they're rigid. Then go check the bends at the circle-with-the-lights
    on 118/Groat, and you'll see the design has some give to it.
    Then add new trolley buses with better designed shoes, and
    a modern retriever system, and you'll probably find that
    they'll derail less than half as often.
    OK, I can look this evening on my way home.

    However, if we are now having to re-wire a significant portion of the grid...didn't my infrastructure costs just skyrocket?
    there you go again, looking for the real costs before being prepared to commit...
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  83. #183
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    6 degrees north of you
    Posts
    784

    Default

    Sadly, the trolley infrastructure has been neglected for the
    past 20 years, so the upgrading is something that should've
    been in past budgets, but wasn't, or was spent elsewhere.

  84. #184
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,432
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor

    there you go again, looking for the real costs before being prepared to commit...

    ...some would call it an art, some a cheap bugger, but I would rather say it is just the nature of someone who has actually done a real risk analysis & a couple of ROI discoveries before.
    Since calm logic doesn't work, I guess it is time to employ sarcasm. ...and before you call me an a-hole...remember, I am a Dick.

  85. #185

    Default

    Does it cost money to do it right? Does it cost money to do anything right? I call hyperbole on the "infrastructure costs just skyrocket" bit. I definitely support upgrading the wires for reliably cornering and whatnot to go along with the fleet renewal, but I don't think the costs of new corner and intersection work will even equal the cost of a single bus. (And on TCO, it should still come out far cheaper than doing their work with diesels, which is always the most important comparison.)


    Anyway, this is the wrong thread to discuss costs. I have a concept for a thread starter that I'll try to put up within 24 hours. (I have tomorrow off...) Please hold off on the economic front in this thread....


    ---

    RicoLance21:

    I'm with tdh on this one: I think that electrifying route 81 would be different than the philosophy I support of using trolley technology for the heaviest routes. The fact that it also runs parallel with the main Millwoods route also makes it look redundant. If there's an accident on the main line, the battery packs should take care of it.

    If we were trying only for health and aesthetics I'd say do it, but I really prefer compromising toward the best of economics and popularity.

    bagould, kcantor, feepa, mark:

    I don't know enough about operating costs of rail (such as corrosion and wear on sanded roads in winter, or how they affect traffic flow (other than removing some cars, say)) to say for sure what I think about streetcars.

    I am leery of them at the moment however, as guaranteed they will require a much larger amount of capital investment than trolleys, yet would not lower operating costs much below trolleys, if at all.

    On rider comfort, I can't imagine there would be that much difference.

    Then there is the issue of car accidents. If one happens in front of a trolley, they can just change lanes. If an accident somehow blocks an entire road, modern trolleys can just use their backups to detour. Streetcars simply mix worse with traffic, and separate rights of way are vastly more expensive.

    As I am also an occasional cyclist (and former bike commuter until University graduation) I'd say rails are a non-issue for bikes. Unless say, one was just riding back and forth over tracks for hours at a time, I wouldn't even notice them.

    That said, I still prefer trolleys.

    Highlander:

    Great points about the efficiency of long routes in mixed traffic. I think I mentioned in the thread starter that the system should be equiped with GPS for traffic signal priority, and more than once RicoLance21 has mentioned running BRT on electricity on the lines in his map, which implies what I was also thinking, that transit running on trunk routes should get the odd transit exclusive lane and whatnot to ensure speedier and more reliable trip times.

    You're right to suggest that the LRT would still be quicker, but the NELRT which you use is actually always going to be the fastest the LRT runs in Edmonton, with the only forseeable exception being YEG, actually. Once they get mixed with traffic, such as on the SLRT now, they'll have to slow down too. It isn't rubber tires or asphalt which makes traffic slower than NELRT, it's the NELRT's exclusive right of way, which would be hugely expensive to duplicate elsewhere.

  86. #186
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,425

    Default

    On route 81: When I lived in Ritchie I wished they would make it a more frequent route, but numbers didn't really justify it. If it were extended further into Millwoods and made the primary route from Whyte to downtown via 99 St the numbers would probably be there. That would mean ditching the Whyte-downtown loop though. Personally, I don't understand why the current route 6 goes downtown rather than turning around at U of A anyways. Between the 9, the 52 and the 70/81 you are never more than 3 blocks from a bus route crossing Whyte Av and heading downtown, plus the 4 and 106 heading east-west.

  87. #187
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    653

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48
    Personally, I don't understand why the current route 6 goes downtown rather than turning around at U of A anyways. Between the 9, the 52 and the 70/81 you are never more than 3 blocks from a bus route crossing Whyte Av and heading downtown, plus the 4 and 106 heading east-west.
    You kind of have to think of the 6 as a series of overlapping routes. There's a MW to U of A, a Southgate to Whyte, a U of A to 99 Street, and a Whyte to Downtown, all kind of layered together. No one in their right mind should be taking the 6 the whole length of the route. Bad route planning? Sure. But that section of the 6 currently serves an important role and beefs up the U of A -> Whyte section which needs more than just the 4.

  88. #188
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    132

    Default

    New trolleybus route to consider

    <Route Origin to Destination - AM-PM peak - Midday - Early Eve.>

    18
    The Quarters to Oliver (via North Edge) - 15 - 15 - 30
    Reason: With the downtown population expected to triple in the next 20 years, an added route along infill areas near downtown can relieve expected congestion on existing transit routes. It can also serve as a feeder route to the rapid transit system.

    95 St > 102 A Ave > 97 St > 102 Ave > 100 St > 102 A Ave > 101 St > 105 Ave > 116 St > 104 Ave > 121 St > 102 Ave > 124 St > Jasper Ave > 121 St > 104 Ave > 116 St > 105 Ave > 101 St > 102 Ave > 95 St

    Can there be enough ridership to maintain Route 18 as it is?

    Proposed changes to concept:

    5
    Coliseum to Westmount - 10 - 15 - 15
    The Quarters to Westmount - 5 - 7/8 - 15
    Reason: New high-density residential can intensify activity along Route 5 (ie: 118 Ave, The Quarters, Oliver, Charles Camsell).
    Note: My concept is to merge Route 135 with Route 5. 15-minute frequency or greater for all service hours except Sunday evenings (30 minutes).

    116 to cancel completely once the WBRT is in service.
    Reason: Since my concept of West Edmonton can be well served with WBRT and WLRT, Route 116 is redundant, even as an express route.

  89. #189
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee

    bagould, kcantor, feepa, mark:

    I don't know enough about operating costs of rail (such as corrosion and wear on sanded roads in winter, or how they affect traffic flow (other than removing some cars, say)) to say for sure what I think about streetcars.

    I am leery of them at the moment however, as guaranteed they will require a much larger amount of capital investment than trolleys, yet would not lower operating costs much below trolleys, if at all.

    On rider comfort, I can't imagine there would be that much difference.

    Then there is the issue of car accidents. If one happens in front of a trolley, they can just change lanes. If an accident somehow blocks an entire road, modern trolleys can just use their backups to detour. Streetcars simply mix worse with traffic, and separate rights of way are vastly more expensive.

    ...

    That said, I still prefer trolleys.



    While there is a big difference in capital cost for Streetcars (somehing like $20-$30m per mile) there is can be big differences in how they operate. Operating costs will not be much different until you get to passenger densities where larger vehicles can be used without sacrificing service frequency. Then trolleys are generally limited to single articulated vehicles, but streetcars can operate with as many as 7 sections, for much higher capacity and therefor lower operating costs per rider.

    If a ROW is required, Streetcars need less row than busses, as streetcars will not deviate from the track, so only a couple inches of clearance is required. A an example, The St. Clair Streetcar in toronto is currently being rebuilt as ROW. The construction replacement busses cannot run on completed sections of ROW because they are to narrow for the busses to safely drive on, even at "innercity bus speed".

    From my limited experience with streetcars, they are more comfortable and spacious than busses, rock and bump less, and the standard Streetcar is now at least 70% low floor.

    As an added bonus, streetcars are seen by the Choice rider demographic as good, and new streetcars tend to have significantly higher ridership than the busses they replace. They add to the streetscape, and tend to Spur investment where they run.

    For the anti-wire crowd, they use half the overhead wire that trolleybusses use, and can actually use in road third rail current collection and eliminate wires completely, although that would be costly and I'm not so sure that it would work well in ice and snow. With pantograph current collection instrad of trolley poles, there is no need to slow down at switches, either.


    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee
    Highlander:

    Great points about the efficiency of long routes in mixed traffic. I think I mentioned in the thread starter that the system should be equiped with GPS for traffic signal priority, and more than once RicoLance21 has mentioned running BRT on electricity on the lines in his map, which implies what I was also thinking, that transit running on trunk routes should get the odd transit exclusive lane and whatnot to ensure speedier and more reliable trip times.

    You're right to suggest that the LRT would still be quicker, but the NELRT which you use is actually always going to be the fastest the LRT runs in Edmonton, with the only forseeable exception being YEG, actually. Once they get mixed with traffic, such as on the SLRT now, they'll have to slow down too. It isn't rubber tires or asphalt which makes traffic slower than NELRT, it's the NELRT's exclusive right of way, which would be hugely expensive to duplicate elsewhere.
    My point here is that there is actually little advantage to interlining sections into a longer route, except where there is no intersecting express (LRT or BRT) service. Like bagould noted with the #6, no one rides the #8 from end to end, and once LRT goes to nait the rider split will be even more distinct. Essentially, excepting major (rapid) crosstown routes like the LRT routes could be broken up into more managable chunks to match service with ridership. The #8 is a good example of this. There is the 118th ave section that provides local and some crosstown service. The downtown to nait section will serve exclusively as a Local parallel to the LRT, with nolonger distance passengers. From millwoods to downtown will continue to serve both local traffic and long trip traffic until BRT or LRT is provided to millwoods. There will be no ridership continuity between the 3 sections, so services could be separated and then could be served with different frequencies, vehicles and even mode.

    Millwoods to Downtown might be well suited to Articulated trolleybus function, with high loads and semi-express function. Downtown to Nait could be well served by normal 40' busses, and 118th Ave could be very frequent 40' busses for now, or Low floor streetcar service in the future, as density increases and to spur density and development.

    Regaring LRT speed, I was under the impression that SLRT would be approximately as fast as NELRT. I wouldn't call SLRT mixed traffic, either, as it has 100% exclusive ROW. What it does have is more frequent level crossings, which will slow it down a little, but will be more of a hindrance to the crossing road traffic than to the LRT, which will have full priority, except, if I recall correctly, 1 in 6 trains will wait a few seconds S-bound at 76th for the signal cycle to clear it's path.

  90. #190
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    653

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander
    My point here is that there is actually little advantage to interlining sections into a longer route, except where there is no intersecting express (LRT or BRT) service. Like bagould noted with the #6, no one rides the #8 from end to end, and once LRT goes to nait the rider split will be even more distinct.
    I disagree to a certain extent. I think interlining is a good idea, however, it should not simply be that every trip interlines, ie in effect the composite routes such as the 6 and 8.

    For instance, if you have three routes meeting at a point, with one running on 15s and the other two on 30s, you can interline the more frequent one alternately with the other two. That way you are guaranteeing a zero-time transfer every time, instead of forcing some other type of transfer.

    What I would personally do is take the 8 and all the other buses into Millwoods that run express and combine them into an 8 express and an 8 local. The 8X runs from Downtown to Millgate, stopping only at, say, Whyte, Argyll, and maybe a couple other places. After Millgate, the 8X splits into routes that serve each of those stupid pods in Millwoods. The 8L then just runs the local part of the route on a lower frequency.

    So what you end up with is a 8X1, 8X2, 8X3, 8X4, 8X5, and 8X6, each serving one of six pods every half hour. The routes are timed so that one arrives at Millgate every five minutes, and from there on out the route is effectively the 8X (though still signed as 8X1 or whatever) and runs on a five minute frequency.

    The signage is important; people who just want an 8X will ignore the added number, but if you want to go straight to Millwoods, just grab the specific number.

    During off peak times you can make some of these routes not interline. Maybe have the feeders on hourly and the express on 15s, with the two extra feeders making timed transfers onto the express at Millgate. Or they become 8L1 or something.

    I know it sounds complicated when you think of it as one complicated route, but really, it's just a more usable consolidation of what we have now.


    Voila. BRT. All-door POP boarding once it hits the express section, and a bus lanes and lights with signal priority where it makes sense.

  91. #191
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    6 degrees north of you
    Posts
    784

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48
    Personally, I don't understand why the current route 6 goes downtown rather than turning around at U of A anyways. Between the 9, the 52 and the 70/81 you are never more than 3 blocks from a bus route crossing Whyte Av and heading downtown, plus the 4 and 106 heading east-west.
    The #6 is a combination of the old #53, #69 and #46.
    The old #53 to Millgate, #69 to University, then #46 to downtown.
    The scheduling on Whyte Ave though, for the #4, #6 and #106,
    needs to be revised.
    Midday, 104/82 WB, they all come within a 3 or 4 minute time
    period, then you wait 11-12 minutes for the next bus.
    They should be scheduled to give 5 minute service.

  92. #192
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RicoLance21
    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS
    Can I ask one question of the trolley advocates?

    Will these new trolleys be able to navigate the switches better? Will they not have to come to a crawl every time there is a slight change in the wires? I follow a couple trolleys on 107th ave, and there is no end to my frustration as these old pieces of crap derail, slow down unexpectedly, or shower me with sparks.
    I am not an expert on trolleybuses, but I heard the poles from New Flyer are designed differently to handle intersections at somewhat higher speeds. Generally, trolleybuses can not rip through special work at full speed no matter how good both the poles and infrastructure are. However, I think certain K&M special work can handle speeds of 60 kph without de-wiring. I could be wrong though. Could someone please enlighten me if I am?
    The poles on the New Flyer buses are made by Kiepe, with a shoe designed by Vancouver. I believe every pole used on new trolleybuses in North America has come from Kiepe. Yes, they should be able to take special work faster. How much faster I'm not exactly sure. I don't think this is a big concern to ETS right now. I'll be in Vancouver in a few weeks... I should be able to comment more then. Hell, I intend to be in Seattle as well, so I might be able to comment from there as well.

  93. #193
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by microbus
    Part of the problem along 107th Ave is that the trolley wires
    are old. The newer 'speed wire' allows trolley buses to take
    bends a bit faster, as the wiring is designed to 'give' a bit
    more than the old rigid design.
    Check the bends around the cemetery, and you'll notice
    they're rigid. Then go check the bends at the circle-with-the-lights
    on 118/Groat, and you'll see the design has some give to it.
    107 Ave trolley wire I seem to recall is mostly K+M. I not 100% certain what the cemetery curve is, but on the east side of the cemetery it is K+M that would have been erected in the 1980's.
    All wire west of 124 St on 107 Ave (and 102 Ave and at least portion of 118 Ave) is K+M from the 1980's.

  94. #194
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    6 degrees north of you
    Posts
    784

    Default

    Yeah, I went through the 107 ave area this past week,
    and I hadn't realized they'd switched the overhead to
    the new design.
    Although, on 107 ave from 120 St to 124 St, the old wiring
    is still in use. Also, I think all of 101 St still uses the old
    wiring.
    And a link about trolley buses on wiki:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_bus

  95. #195
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    132

    Default

    Anyone have any opinions about the following changes I may consider for my next revision (if necessary)?

    New trolleybus route to consider.

    <Route Origin to Destination - AM-PM peak - Midday - Early Eve.>

    18
    The Quarters to Oliver (via North Edge) - 15 - 15 - 30
    Reason: With the downtown population expected to triple in the next 20 years, an added route along infill areas near downtown can relieve expected congestion on existing transit routes. It can also serve as a feeder route to the rapid transit system.

    95 St > 102 A Ave > 97 St > 102 Ave > 100 St > 102 A Ave > 101 St > 105 Ave > 116 St > 104 Ave > 121 St > 102 Ave > 124 St > Jasper Ave > 121 St > 104 Ave > 116 St > 105 Ave > 101 St > 102 Ave > 95 St

    Can there be enough ridership to maintain Route 18 as it is?

    Proposed changes to concept:

    4 (East Portion)
    Capilano to University (interlink with 1) - 15 - 15 - 15
    Bonnie Doon to University - 5 - 7/8 - 15

    5
    Coliseum to Westmount - 10 - 15 - 15
    The Quarters to Westmount - 5 - 7/8 - 15
    Reason: New high-density residential can intensify activity along Route 5 (ie: 118 Ave, The Quarters, Oliver, Charles Camsell).
    Note: My concept is to merge Route 135 with Route 5. 15-minute frequency or greater for all service hours except Sunday evenings (30 minutes).

    116 to cancel completely once the WBRT is in service.
    Reason: Since my concept of West Edmonton can be well served with WBRT and WLRT, Route 116 is redundant, even as an express route.

  96. #196

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander
    From my limited experience with streetcars, they are more comfortable and spacious than busses, rock and bump less, and the standard Streetcar is now at least 70% low floor.
    I agree with you here. Personally, I hate riding in busses, whether they be Trolleys or not. Unlike a train or street car, busess are all over the place, rocking and rolling, swaying and stuff. Aside from a few trolley romantics, I don't think anyone chooses to ride them for comfort. It is more economics / environment, etc. Yes, I understand transit is important, and that as we age, it will be even more important. But expanding trolleys does not seem the smart answer right now. Better off waiting five years or so, to see where hybrid (esp. Lithium batteries), plug in, and fuel cell technology goes before expanding the Trolley system. Seems we are on the cusp of technological change that might make many current systems redundant. GM is talking about manufacturing its plug in the Volt by 2010 for example. Who knows now how these technologies will impact on transit systems?

    I am not so sure about Street cars either. Edmonton is never going to be a big international tourist desitination, and accordingly, the romance of Street cars may not make sense. I think there is a lot of nostalgia here, for something we don't have and that other cities do (typically tourist cities and towns that we visit). IMO building new from scratch Street car systems probably only makes econoimc sense for tourist towns (even there, it is not that original now). Otherwise, we would see cities without Street cars's building new street car systems all over the world. It may be different if we already had street cars, but we don't, so the cost and traffic impact to place them throughout the city would likely be horrendous. And if they don't go anywhere useful for locals on their commute, they will only ever be a pretty tourist icon, not a transit solution. See for example, Christchurch, New Zealand which put a Street car loop in downtown that locals never use. Or our existing high level street car, which is enough for locals for the experience IMO.

    Lots of room to improve the existing bus system first - new technologies, better information for passengers (e.g. I want electornic signs that say when bus will arrive which would be very cheap to implement), more and better bus lanes, etc. And lets not forget prioritising LRT. Now good LRT access would get me out of my car back into transit, I have no doubt it would for others too.

  97. #197
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    6 degrees north of you
    Posts
    784

    Default

    moa, I agree with making the LRT better...
    I don't agree with your streetcar opinion though.
    Dozens of cities in Europe have streetcars, also known as trams.
    A quote from wiki:
    "Europe, particularly Germany,France,Italy, Finland, Austria, Switzerland, Netherlands, Sweden and Belgium, has an extensive number of tramway networks. Some of these networks have been upgraded to light rail standards, called Stadtbahn in Germany and Premetros in Belgium."

    I could even try to get a list of all the cities if wanted.

    As for comfort on the bus, have you tried riding the brand new
    buses yet? They're numbered 4602 and up, and have new fabric
    for the seating, with a different curvature too. I finally sat in one
    of the new seats last week, and it was quite comfortable. And
    the new buses are far quieter too, because of all the added
    filters and other stuff back in the engine compartment.

  98. #198

    Default

    It is not the quietness for me, it is the stop start motion of busses, and the swaying. It is just not pleasent, and never will be. I don't even like fancy long distance busses. Much rather travel on a long distance train (if affordable), much more comfotable.

    I lived for a while in Europe and liked the Street Cars. But you will not find Street cars in most European cities. If you ever stray off the tourist track you will quickly realize that. Mainly just the big tourist cities, small tourist towns, and the cities that have historically always had them.

    I just think to be usefull here, they would be a huge investment given the distances we commute.

  99. #199
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    6 degrees north of you
    Posts
    784

    Default

    I do agree with anything on rails being more comfortable...
    was just wondering if you tried the new buses yet, that's all

    I think, for Edmonton, having streetcars on Whyte Ave, and
    maybe 118 ave/Alberta ave, would be good for businesses in
    both areas, along with Edmontonians, and even tourists.
    But, I don't see it ever happening.

  100. #200

    Default

    Not yet re the new busses. I might have to soon if downtown parking keeps going up though I'll probably find out at next Park N Ride event we go to (our kids like this chance to do the bus thing).

Page 2 of 14 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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