Page 3 of 14 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 300 of 1366

Thread: The Trolley Bus Thread

  1. #201
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    653

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter
    Or our existing high level street car, which is enough for locals for the experience IMO.
    Stop on Whyte, stop on Jasper, full transfer privs with ETS, run it longer, new rolling stock, and bam, it's a very useful transit route.

  2. #202
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    132

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bagould
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter
    Or our existing high level street car, which is enough for locals for the experience IMO.
    Stop on Whyte, stop on Jasper, full transfer privs with ETS, run it longer, new rolling stock, and bam, it's a very useful transit route.
    Is there room for two tracks underneath 109 St? If so, I do have a neat concept on how Edmonton can use the streetcars.

  3. #203
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    653

    Default

    I'm thinking probably not, unfortunately.

    That is the main problem with the route, it would be dependent on passing track, which is why it probably can't be extended that much without running into problems.

  4. #204

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander
    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.
    That's a fair point about scaling up capacity, however trolleys are not limited to single articulated at all, double articulated is also perfectly feasible. The reason that New Flyer doesn't currently make them is because their current generation of articulateds are engineered more toward diesel which truly does become unfeasible beyond a single articulated joint (although double articulated diesels have also been manufactured (in Brazil, which isn't famous for snow, and the buses in question are not used on large hills)). The double articulated Swiss Hess bodies (with Vossloh Kiepe electrical systems) are completely optimised for long-life trolley operations only, with no consideration or compromise for diesel design except their backup generators which are actually diesel. They are also aluminum framed, and thus in every way likely to be reliable contributors to transit for at least 2 decades. If buying from Hess were not acceptable, I'm sure Hess would be willing to sell the key parts and design plans that New Flyer would need to build their own.

    That said, you're right that streetcars can still get much longer, but we have to admit that even our current LRT trains won't be longer than 4 cars for quite a few years yet, and the current line will never be longer than 5 cars. The 7 cars you cite, while technically feasible would only become operationally feasible if Edmonton's population density and propensity to ride transit changed quite dramatically. (How dramatically? I'd honestly say that if we were to condense our current metro population into Saskatoon's proper civic footprint, we'd be there, but realistically nothing short of that.)

    Thus the megatrolleys, while not true replacements for streetcars, are still big enough for a lot of what we need to do, yet if we consider costs at all (which I think we should) will always come out ahead of streetcars due to the practically insurmountable up front capital investment. Considering the costs of capital, (usually calculated as interest that we could be otherwise earning on the cash, and usually calculated at 7%) the labour savings over running 4 megatrolleys that running a single, 4 car streetcar, everyday, but during peak hours only, would likely not pay off for a century.

    I don't want to be seen as against streetcars, but especially during the boom, I think we should seriously consider what trolleys really have to offer, and most of their advantage over streetcars is certainly in costs. I think most of the time, I champion trolleys as in nearly every way a superior alternative to diesel buses . Make no mistake, what I support is electric transit, what I oppose is street level pollution and noise, and what I cannot help but bear in mind is costs.

    I support trolleys because they are economically feasible in shorter time frames and lower density routes than rail based options, yet despite what to me at least is an obvious raison d'etre in obvious niches, trolleys are wrongly targeted for removal by some very short sighted people.

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander
    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".
    That's a fair point. I think what I'm getting at (if I may be so bold as to presume that I know what I'm thinking) is that when a ROW is justified, it's at the point where rail is also justified, but before that, trolleys are the best we can possibly do.

    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 believe the Hess bodies are 100% low floor, but I'll double check. The amount of rock and bump depends somewhat on the number of corners and stops there are on a given line, and on the skill of the driver. As you can plainly see from RicoLance21's maps (and my own feeble attempt) the routes are mostly running in straight, rail-like lines.

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander
    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.
    Actually I have seen exactly the same claims made about trolleys.

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander
    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.
    Granted yet again, however I just have to remind:
    1. modern trolleys have battery packs.
    2. If ridership breaks the feasibility threshold we can always put rails under the wires (and change the wires.)
    3. few people notice any variety of wires in places where the overall streetscape is nicely designed. It's an issue of attention to aesthetics moreso than choice of technology.


    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. 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.
    For the longer arms of the trolley bus system that we're discussing here, it has always been assumed they would be express services. The only place where frequent stops have been considered for trolley ops are in the high density neighbourhoods. such as around the Whyte/Jasper loop.

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander
    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.
    The only thing I'd interject here is that trolleys and megatrolleys still have a place in the scaling up spectrum.

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander
    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.
    I didn't say it wouldn't be fast, I only said it would be slower than the NELRT. I don't know how much slower exactly, but it looks like you see the same factors I do.

  5. #205

    Default

    moahunter:

    Not to repeat too much of my reply to highlander, I do see your valid perspective on things. About the motion, you're right that buses have more than trains, and about the costs, you're right that trains cost more than buses. Are trolleys not a reasonable middle ground? I think given the rather clear ridership advantages of trolleys over diesels, combined with the fact that on certain routes they're actually cheaper than diesel (and much cheaper than hybrid buses or rail, and ridiculously cheaper than fuel cells) makes a pretty powerful overall argument for keeping trolleys firmly in transit. (I'm not arguing at all that they displace the other technologies completely, of course, merely that they have their place, and that place could be quite large (as shown in RicoLance21's diagram.)

    RicoLance21:

    Reply coming, I just have to put on a completely different hat for a few hours... (luckily I have a rare day off today. )

  6. #206
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    132

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee
    moahunter:


    RicoLance21:

    Reply coming, I just have to put on a completely different hat for a few hours... (luckily I have a rare day off today. )
    I am ready when you are

  7. #207

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RicoLance21
    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?
    So like a local downtown residents shuttle?

    I think it fits with the concept of keeping diesel minimised in high density neighbourhoods, but the distance in question is pretty minimal, as that's not much of a shopping or entertainment destination, the loads are only likely to be in peak hours, and possibly seasonal at that, as that kind of neighbourhood would be basically perfect for bike commuting.

    It's hard to fit into the scheme of efficient line use, I think, but it would certainly fit in an air quality purism. Overall I'd say no, but perhaps if you've got the interest/time , you could always do one map for financial efficiency and and another for air quality...

    Quote Originally Posted by RicoLance21
    Proposed changes to concept:

    4 (East Portion)
    Capilano to University (interlink with 1) - 15 - 15 - 15
    Bonnie Doon to University - 5 - 7/8 - 15
    I'm with the 15 minute frequencies, but for anything greater I sorta dream that comes along with the Sherwood Park line, which comes along with regional transit integration. In any case, the frequency proposal doesn't change the OH map, does it?

    Why not throw in Sherwood Park and St. Albert on the map? I think regional transit integration at very least isn't that far fetched.

    Quote Originally Posted by RicoLance21
    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).
    I see the point for increased need on the downtown/oliver segment, but I think unless there were a TOD of serious size built at Westmount, including possibly across 142 Street from the Science Centre (which I actually proposed on the original map) the ridership would probably drop off pretty steeply after 124 St & 107 Ave. Why not supplement the 15 minute Route-5 with a counter rotating Jasper/107th loop? Or anchor half of the frequencies in St Albert, as mentioned above? (Although we ought to consider St. Albert possibly being better served up Kingsway.) What do you think?

    Quote Originally Posted by RicoLance21
    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.
    I wonder how many end to end riders there actually are in Rio Terrace. If I were them, I would prefer changing to a trolley or an LRT A.S.A.P., but since I'm not them, I can't say I'm sure. It does seem unlikely that entire bus loads of people are going all the way downtown, but if it's the case, I say let them choose. If they can justify the trips and value having a seat all the way, that's okay with me. This, by the way, is exacly where diesel buses supposed gigantic advantage of route flexibility comes in.

  8. #208
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    132

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee
    So like a local downtown residents shuttle?

    I think it fits with the concept of keeping diesel minimised in high density neighbourhoods, but the distance in question is pretty minimal, as that's not much of a shopping or entertainment destination, the loads are only likely to be in peak hours, and possibly seasonal at that, as that kind of neighbourhood would be basically perfect for bike commuting.

    It's hard to fit into the scheme of efficient line use, I think, but it would certainly fit in an air quality purism. Overall I'd say no, but perhaps if you've got the interest/time , you could always do one map for financial efficiency and and another for air quality...
    Don't forget there's a great possibility of increased activity downtown once the downtown population triples, let alone the street-level retail and services in the works for the North Edge neighbourhood and most likely The Quarters neighbourhood. Also notice that there's a hole to fill northwest of the Baccarat Casino. I think a 15-15-30 service is good enough for a trolley route.

    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee

    I'm with the 15 minute frequencies, but for anything greater I sorta dream that comes along with the Sherwood Park line, which comes along with regional transit integration. In any case, the frequency proposal doesn't change the OH map, does it?

    Why not throw in Sherwood Park and St. Albert on the map? I think regional transit integration at very least isn't that far fetched.
    Also keep in mind that I have SEBRT, Route 8 on the OH map with the UPass long since implemented. Route 4 is almost always packed. Route 106 currently has a frequent peak-hour service from Bonnie Doon to University.

    This will not change the OH map at all. I think it's a permanent route, and it's not going anywhere else.

    I doubt Sherwood Park would have a trolley service. I would rather run a diesel BRT to Sherwood Park via Sherwood Park Freeway much like the current express route.

    As for the St. Albert route, that's a different story. I am thinking about another BRT route along the proposed WBRT trolley route, which can split off at 129 St, north to 107 Ave, then west to Groat Rd, then straight to St. Albert, then back again along the same route. Stops can include many parts of downtown, MacEwan CCC, Oliver Square, 124 St., Westmount Transit Centre, Sherbrooke, 137 Ave, Village Square, St. Albert Exchange and Villeneuve Road/Sturgeon County Hospital. St. Albert to University will probably not be feasible enough to electrify.

    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee

    I see the point for increased need on the downtown/oliver segment, but I think unless there were a TOD of serious size built at Westmount, including possibly across 142 Street from the Science Centre (which I actually proposed on the original map) the ridership would probably drop off pretty steeply after 124 St & 107 Ave. Why not supplement the 15 minute Route-5 with a counter rotating Jasper/107th loop? Or anchor half of the frequencies in St Albert, as mentioned above? (Although we ought to consider St. Albert possibly being better served up Kingsway.) What do you think?
    There is a semi-TOD underway at Charles Camsell. But if I add a St. Albert BRT via Westmount, then I could drop the midday frequency to 15 minutes and AM/PM peak to 10 minutes from Jasper/124 to Westmount, while keeping the route at 7/8 minutes midday and 5 minutes AM/PM peak from Jasper/124 to The Quarters.

    I am not sure about serving Kingsway. There is currently a StAT route serving Kingsway, but part of that route uses the Yellowhead. That may not be a good way to electrify. Also note that Kingsway will be connected to the NLRT. Westmount is not connected to any high-speed transit.

    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee

    I wonder how many end to end riders there actually are in Rio Terrace. If I were them, I would prefer changing to a trolley or an LRT A.S.A.P., but since I'm not them, I can't say I'm sure. It does seem unlikely that entire bus loads of people are going all the way downtown, but if it's the case, I say let them choose. If they can justify the trips and value having a seat all the way, that's okay with me. This, by the way, is exacly where diesel buses supposed gigantic advantage of route flexibility comes in.
    Unlike Routes 9A and 9B with a strong connection to Whyte Avenue, there is nothing much left for 116 to stay as a trolley route. Might as well dismantle, dieselize and convert to a short feeder route to the WLRT and WBRT. Besides, 116 only use three buses.

  9. #209
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    132

    Default

    Here it is: Revision 3

    Some changes are made to increase the efficiency of the transit system.

    Also, I created a fantasy timeline of the LRT build-out.


    Route- #of ETB's
    1- 10
    2- 12
    3- 10
    4- 16
    5- 17
    6- 10
    7- 8
    8- 20
    9A,9B- 15
    18- 4
    96- 3
    100A- 22
    100B- 17
    120- 6
    140- 6
    200A/B-22 (Downtown-Whyte Loop)
    _________
    Total 198

    Trolleybus network extensions in greater detail (revision 3):


    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 West Edmonton Mall opens for service:
    dismantle 'express' overhead along 102 Ave

    100 (non-stop super express) - (articulated trolleys)
    re-routed as West BRT


    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 (excl. StationLands) - 15 - 15 - 30
    Millgate to StationLands - 8/15 - 15 - 15 (Churchill Sq. to StationLands - 15 - N/A - 30)
    Abbotsfield to NAIT - 8/15 - 15 - 15
    Mill Woods BRT - (articulated trolleys)
    Mill Woods TC to StationLands - 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 - Lessard - 15 - 30 - 30
    3
    Meadowlark to Coliseum - 15 - 30 - 30
    100 - West BRT (via 104 Avenue/Stony Plain Road, express with stops at Oliver Square, 124 St, 142 St, Jasper Place and Meadowlark)
    (non-express from Meadowlark to West Edmonton Mall)
    West Edmonton Mall 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

    After BRT to West Edmonton Mall opens for service:
    dismantle 'express' overhead along 102 Ave

    116
    discontinue


    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: 105 Ave (from 101 St to 116 St), 116 St (from 104 St to 105 St), 121 St (From 104 St to 102 St)

    18
    The Quarters to Oliver (via North Edge) - 15 - 15 - 30


    Ninth Extension: 50 St (from Highlands to Clareview)

    2
    Clareview - Lessard - 15 - 15 - 30


    Tenth Extension: 129 St (from Stony Plain Rd to 107 Ave), Groat Rd/Mark Messier Trail/St. Albert Trail/St. Albert Road (from 107 ave to Sturgeon County Hospital)
    small portions of downtown's overhead to dismantle

    100A (BRT) (BRT extension to Mill Woods)
    Note: Half of Mill Woods BRT becomes 100A
    (non-express from Meadowlark to West Edmonton Mall)
    Mill Woods - West Edmonton Mall - 10 - 15 - 15
    100B (BRT) - (articulated trolleys) (BRT extension to St. Albert with stops at Oliver Square, 124 St., Westmount Transit Centre, Sherbrooke, 137 Ave, Village Square, St. Albert Exchange and Villeneuve Road/Sturgeon Community Hospital)
    Note: Half of Mill Woods BRT becomes 100B
    Mill Woods - St. Albert (Sturgeon Community Hospital) (excl. StationLands) - 10 - N/A - N/A
    Millgate - St. Albert (Sturgeon Community Hospital) (excl. StationLands) - 10 - 15 - N/A
    StationLands - St. Albert (Sturgeon Community Hospital) - 10 - 15 - 15 (Churchill Sq. to StationLands - N/A - N/A - 15)


    Frequency Upgrades up to 2020:

    4
    Capilano to University (interlink with 1) - 15 - 15 - 15
    Bonnie Doon to University - 5 - 7/8 - 15
    5
    Coliseum - Westmount - 10 - 15 - 15
    The Quarters - Oliver - 5 - 7/8 - 15


    Trolley Routes and Frequency by 2020

    1
    Capilano to Meadowlark - 15 - 15 - 15
    2
    Clareview - Lessard - 15 - 15 - 30
    3
    Meadowlark to Coliseum - 15 - 30 - 30
    4
    Capilano to University - 15 - 15 - 15
    Bonnie Doon to University - 5 - 7/8 - 15
    5
    Coliseum - Westmount - 10 - 15 - 15
    The Quarters - Oliver - 5 - 7/8 - 15
    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
    7
    Jasper Place to Rossdale - 15 - 30 - 30
    8
    Mill Woods TC to Abbotsfield (excl. StationLands) - 15 - 15 - 30
    Millgate to StationLands - 8/15 - 15 - 15 (Churchill Sq. to StationLands - 15 - N/A - 30)
    Abbotsfield to NAIT - 8/15 - 15 - 15
    9A
    South Campus to Castle Downs - 30 - 30 - 30
    (via Parkallen)
    South Campus to 109St/83Ave - 15 - 30 - 30
    (via Parkallen)
    9B
    Belgravia to Castle Downs - 30 - 30 - 30
    (via Spruce Avenue)
    Belgravia to 109 St/83 Ave - 15 - 30 - 30
    18
    The Quarters to Oliver (via North Edge) - 15 - 15 - 30
    96 (express with stops at Lakewood and Millgate) - (articulated trolleys)
    Mill Woods to Southgate - 30 - 30 - N/A
    100A (BRT)
    Mill Woods - West Edmonton Mall - 10 - 15 - 15
    100B (BRT) - (articulated trolleys)
    Mill Woods - St. Albert (Sturgeon Community Hospital) (excl. StationLands) - 10 - N/A - N/A
    Millgate - St. Albert (Sturgeon Community Hospital) (excl. StationLands) - 10 - 15 - N/A
    StationLands - St. Albert (Sturgeon Community Hospital) - 10 - 15 - 15 (Churchill Sq. to StationLands - N/A - N/A - 15)
    120
    Jasper Place to Stadium - 15 - 30 - N/A
    140
    Downtown to NAIT - 15 - 15 - N/A
    200A/200B (Whyte-Downtown loop)
    Clockwise and counterclockwise loop service - 7/8 - 10 - 15


    Trolley routes after 10 extensions: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9A, 9B, 18, 96, 100A, 100B, 120, 140, 200A and 200B
    Future discontinued routes: 133 (to merge with 7), 134, 135 (to merge with 5)
    Conclusion: 18 utilized routes.
    No. of trolleybuses required: 198 + ~15 for rotational maintenance.


    Estimated LRT Expansion dates:
    SLRT to Century Park: 2010
    NLRT to Northgate: 2009-2014
    WLRT to Lewis Estates: 2013-2018
    NELRT to Alberta Hospital: 2016-2018
    NLRT to 195 Ave: 2018-2021
    SLRT to YEG: 2018-2022
    WLRT to Spruce Grove: 2022-2026
    SELRT to Mill Woods (replace SE BRT leg): 2021-2028
    Upgrade all 4-car platforms to 5 cars: 2023-2028
    NELRT to Fort Saskatchewan: 2028-2032
    SLRT to Leduc: 2032-2034
    NWLRT to Sturgeon County Hospital (replace NW BRT leg): 2026-2034

    Frequency of each LRT line by 2034 - 5(5 cars)AM/PM Peak - 10(4 cars)Midday - 10(3 cars)Early Evening
    Late Night Weekdays: 10(3 cars)
    Saturday AM: 15(3 cars)
    Saturday Midday: 10(3 cars)
    Saturday Early Evening: 15(3 cars)
    Saturday Late Night: 15(3 cars)
    Sunday AM/Midday/Evening/Late Night: 15(2 cars)
    Overnight hours (all 7 days): 30(1 car)


    Future Trolley Routes beyond 2020:
    -East BRT to Sherwood Park (via Baseline Rd.)
    -Trolley overhead to St. Albert significantly re-routed to reflect the opening of the NWLRT.
    -SE BRT to Mill Woods to cease from existence.
    -Frequency and/or capacity improvements in various existing trolleybus routes to make up for the loss of two BRT routes by LRT expansion.



  10. #210

    Default

    I love it, but give me some time for a detailed response.

    I'm also trying to come up with a ballparkish cost estimate for this proposal, but it's a slog because you can't exactly check the prices with internet shopping.

    By the way, how close is this system to zero fuel carriers downtown now?

  11. #211
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee
    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.)
    I know that this was posted a while back but I thought I'd comment:

    Whatever merits trolleybusses and megatrolleys have, this chart is useless propaganda. Notice Light rail's capacity range, shown at about 1500-2500ppdph. Our light rail capacity? 7000ppdph. according to them, we're off the charts, somewhere in the upper end of metro/subway capacity.

    It also puts megatrolley max capacity at double bus's max, but for that we need a trolley twice as long as an articulated bus. That's 120' , way more than would be safe on a city street.

    The chart has, for some reason, LRT, subway/metro, and tram all bottoming at 5km trips, but mega trolley at about 3km. There is no reason for this. If anything, Trams (on street LRT) are best suited for short trips, due to ease of boarding and slower speeds. Subways, LRT and megatrolley are all about equal, the only factors are stop interval and access. A mega trolley and a surface LRT with 1km stop interval are both valuable for 1km trips, a subway or grade separated LRT might be only effecient for 2km or longer trips due to the extra time consumed accessing the stop.

    As for bus capacity, there are commuter bus routes in manhattan that have as great capacity as our lrt, and they work, but they require massive terminal infrastructure.

  12. #212

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander
    I know that this was posted a while back but I thought I'd comment:
    No problem, it's not as though I could complain. These days I'm lucky to even check new posts more than three times a week!

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander
    Whatever merits trolleybusses and megatrolleys have, this chart is useless propaganda. Notice Light rail's capacity range, shown at about 1500-2500ppdph. Our light rail capacity? 7000ppdph. according to them, we're off the charts, somewhere in the upper end of metro/subway capacity.

    It also puts megatrolley max capacity at double bus's max, but for that we need a trolley twice as long as an articulated bus. That's 120' , way more than would be safe on a city street.
    Again, I didn't make the chart myself so I'm just going on my own speculation but...

    I believe the chart was not created to show the maximum capacities of the modes, but was intentionally broken up so each mode would show their "sweet spots". That is, if a city had a need for 7000 ppdph, while our LRT might be able to manage, they're suggesting that cities would do better to consider either subways or "heavy rail" ("Train" in the chart), depending on the length of the route. I think I would have to agree.


    Quote Originally Posted by highlander
    The chart has, for some reason, LRT, subway/metro, and tram all bottoming at 5km trips, but mega trolley at about 3km. There is no reason for this. If anything, Trams (on street LRT) are best suited for short trips, due to ease of boarding and slower speeds. Subways, LRT and megatrolley are all about equal, the only factors are stop interval and access. A mega trolley and a surface LRT with 1km stop interval are both valuable for 1km trips, a subway or grade separated LRT might be only effecient for 2km or longer trips due to the extra time consumed accessing the stop.
    I do see your point, and I agree, but again I don't think the chart is saying that the modes "bottom" at 5 km, just that building an LRT line when it would be less than 5 km at longest would rarely be sensible for a city to consider. Even phase one of Edmonton's LRT was over 6 km when it opened, and it was always envisaged to at least go where it is now finally going for a total of 20 km. Likewise if Saskatoon were to consider a line from their downtown to the outskirts in *any direction, they could go over 5 km.

    For that matter, the original Edmonton streetcars (and later trolleys) went all the way from Strathcona to Calder, and that was over 10 kilometres, about 100 years ago!


    (Circa ~ 1939)
    http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~wyatt/a...monton-ab.html


    Quote Originally Posted by highlander
    As for bus capacity, there are commuter bus routes in manhattan that have as great capacity as our lrt, and they work, but they require massive terminal infrastructure.
    Again, if we have that kind of loads, should we ideally be considering depending solely on diesel buses? The chart is saying no. I firmly agree there too.

  13. #213
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander
    Whatever merits trolleybusses and megatrolleys have, this chart is useless propaganda. Notice Light rail's capacity range, shown at about 1500-2500ppdph. Our light rail capacity? 7000ppdph. according to them, we're off the charts, somewhere in the upper end of metro/subway capacity.

    It also puts megatrolley max capacity at double bus's max, but for that we need a trolley twice as long as an articulated bus. That's 120' , way more than would be safe on a city street.
    Again, I didn't make the chart myself so I'm just going on my own speculation but...

    I believe the chart was not created to show the maximum capacities of the modes, but was intentionally broken up so each mode would show their "sweet spots". That is, if a city had a need for 7000 ppdph, while our LRT might be able to manage, they're suggesting that cities would do better to consider either subways or "heavy rail" ("Train" in the chart), depending on the length of the route. I think I would have to agree.


    Quote Originally Posted by highlander
    The chart has, for some reason, LRT, subway/metro, and tram all bottoming at 5km trips, but mega trolley at about 3km. There is no reason for this. If anything, Trams (on street LRT) are best suited for short trips, due to ease of boarding and slower speeds. Subways, LRT and megatrolley are all about equal, the only factors are stop interval and access. A mega trolley and a surface LRT with 1km stop interval are both valuable for 1km trips, a subway or grade separated LRT might be only effecient for 2km or longer trips due to the extra time consumed accessing the stop.
    I do see your point, and I agree, but again I don't think the chart is saying that the modes "bottom" at 5 km, just that building an LRT line when it would be less than 5 km at longest would rarely be sensible for a city to consider. Even phase one of Edmonton's LRT was over 6 km when it opened, and it was always envisaged to at least go where it is now finally going for a total of 20 km. Likewise if Saskatoon were to consider a line from their downtown to the outskirts in *any direction, they could go over 5 km.

    ...
    I understood the chart to represent trip length, not line length. It does make a bit more sense reading as line lenth, though.

    The point about LRT capacity is that our LRT is already 3x what THEY say is maximum for LRT but well in range for trollybus. with enough vehicles, our LRT vehicles/stations/track could easily carry 24,000 per direction, per hour. Crush (postgame loads) our LRT could carry over 30,000 ppdph.

    Maybe the problem is that we insist on calling the thing LRT, instead of light metro, or even just metro.

  14. #214

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander
    I understood the chart to represent trip length, not line length. It does make a bit more sense reading as line lenth, though.

    The point about LRT capacity is that our LRT is already 3x what THEY say is maximum for LRT but well in range for trollybus. with enough vehicles, our LRT vehicles/stations/track could easily carry 24,000 per direction, per hour. Crush (postgame loads) our LRT could carry over 30,000 ppdph.

    Maybe the problem is that we insist on calling the thing LRT, instead of light metro, or even just metro.
    Actually that's the same conclusion bagould and I came to in the thread supposedly about traction. Their distinction between LRT, Tram, and maybe even subways, may not strictly apply to our system.

  15. #215
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    132

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee
    I love it, but give me some time for a detailed response.

    I'm also trying to come up with a ballparkish cost estimate for this proposal, but it's a slog because you can't exactly check the prices with internet shopping.

    By the way, how close is this system to zero fuel carriers downtown now?
    Downtown will never have zero fuel carriers. There will always be diesel buses that only run during peak hours.

    Note: Since Edmonton ditches any BRT plans in favor of LRT, all BRT trolleybus routes are to be express trolleybus routes.

  16. #216

    Default

    About the ditching of the BRT:
    I half wonder if it's only the ditching of the stupid terminology, while they go ahead with most of it anyway. They're saying that they'll go with LRT instead, but how many aeons are we talking about? They're going to do some boost of express buses, whatever they call them. I just hope they begin including a choice of fuels in their planning alternatives.


    About diesel fumes in the core:
    What about dual modes? If used for peak hours only, how many potential vehicles would we need?

    And assuming we got them, how much additional wiring do you think we would be looking at in the core?


    In case anyone is wondering about dual modes:

    Inside, with diesel noise and with trolley noise:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9ZFQuSc0no

    Outside, using it's guided automatic trolley poles:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6-bEbd2ZTc

  17. #217

    Default

    It would be great to see Edmonton commit to purchasing new buses, but I'm always disappointed at how quickly the trolleys get taken off due to something (like construction). Seems that staff are sabotaging the trolleys regardless of councils decision.

    In Vancouver the trolleys are heavily used. Back in 1995, before the introduction of express buses on Broadway, the trolleys accounted for 50% of all transit trips in Greater Vancouver. The busiest route, the 9 Broadway with approx. 47,000 boardings per day. Even today, the Broadway corridor sees the 9 Broadway trolley running every 5 minutes all day, and the 99 b-line express bus running every 5 minutes all day or better - combined, they're carrying over 60,000 passengers per day - more than the Edmonton LRT.

    The reason Bus 6000 has fewer seats is to pack more standees in - take a trip up Main Street to experience some of the most crowed buses in the system - not uncommon to have to wait for 2 or 3 buses before you can get on. This is why the articulated buses will be placed on Main street first.

    In Vancouver, if there is a power out, or damaged overhead, crews get out right away and repair it, while trolleys go by with poles down on battery power. I was on a trolley at UBC bus loop a few years ago, when the power failed. No problem the drive took the poles down and proceed on battery, reconnecting to the overhead at Blanca Road (about 1km from the bus loop).

    A few weeks ago, an explosion closed Broadway for the morning. The broadway trolleys were rerouted via downtown to get past the closure - going on battery would be chancy given the congestion and distance - the reroute was the best option.

    The big disappointment in Vancouver is Translink decision not to replace the Cambie trolley wires. But, there are other extensions planned to provide new links in the system and to allow rerouting of some trolleys. Already, there are new wires on Hemlock and Fir to accommodate Oak Street trolleys diverted because of the Canada Line skytrain construction. Edmonton would have just replaced the Oak St trolley's with diesels!

    The Vancouver trolley's really are clean air as the electricity powering them comes from hydro dams.

    The 60ft articulated trolleys required power upgrades - guess they had a little trouble on the hills, so a boost to the power supply is in progress.

    Just noticed - Edmonton's trolley's have no license plates - Vancouver's do. interesting!!

  18. #218

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lightrail View Post
    It would be great to see Edmonton commit to purchasing new buses, but I'm always disappointed at how quickly the trolleys get taken off due to something (like construction). Seems that staff are sabotaging the trolleys regardless of councils decision.
    It is easy to claim that it is a conspiracy when something we want does not progress in the way that we want. Maybe instead, it would be better to ask the question why Trolleys are not the big focus right now?

    My understanding, from what I have read, is that the best and brightest in our City are focusing on LRT. Not trolleys, not BRT, not busses, not trams (which all have their pros and cons) - the focus is on LRT. I think that is a good focus for the moment, because there has never been a better opportunity to expand the terrific LRT system we have, than right now. Once we have our transport hubs efficiently connected, then all the options, including buses, hybrids, and even trolleys and trams, will be on the table. But I think, no harm in seeing first where technology takes us while the most critical hub connects are made, and no harm in prioritising LRT, as it is the only transit to date in Edmonton, that has proven to be popular enough to get the masses out of cars. When a bit more of our city is covered by LRT, we will have a much better idea as to what impact that will have on all our roads, and a much better idea, of what type of transit system is most suited to fill the gaps. Until then, the bus system we have can carry the slack with minimal capital investment.
    Last edited by moahunter; 15-03-2008 at 08:09 AM.

  19. #219
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Holyrood
    Posts
    4,846

    Default

    It's all fine and good to focus on the LRT, but we have an existing trolley infrastructure that the city does not seem interested in maintaining let alone considering for expansion. If any other infrastructure in the city breaks down, outrage ensues and the cost of fixing it overrides all other priorities. Except with the trolleys. Why is that?

    I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist myself, but when other cities that are using the same type of trolley infrastructure as Edmonton (notably San Fran. and Vancouver) put a higher priority on its maintenance and expansion, why is Edmonton going the opposite direction by letting ours fall apart and getting ready to tear it down completely? Even as (I like to think I am) a rational, reasonable citizen, it makes me wonder what kind of politics are at play that we're the exception instead of the rule.

  20. #220
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    McKernan, Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12

    Default

    Even though our current trolleys don't have APU's, they could still be pushed past the outage until the problem is fixed. Instead ETS makes a huge deal and changes over every trolley in the city. Not to mention they almost NEVER run trolleys on the weekends. Doesn't make any sense does it? I wonder who's responsible for these decisions? Could the difference be that Vancouver has it's own trolley repair crew and Edmonton relies on Epcor? Then again, isn't Epcor owned by the city?

  21. #221

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RTA View Post
    It's all fine and good to focus on the LRT, but we have an existing trolley infrastructure that the city does not seem interested in maintaining let alone considering for expansion. If any other infrastructure in the city breaks down, outrage ensues and the cost of fixing it overrides all other priorities. Except with the trolleys. Why is that?

    I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist myself, but when other cities that are using the same type of trolley infrastructure as Edmonton (notably San Fran. and Vancouver) put a higher priority on its maintenance and expansion, why is Edmonton going the opposite direction by letting ours fall apart and getting ready to tear it down completely? Even as (I like to think I am) a rational, reasonable citizen, it makes me wonder what kind of politics are at play that we're the exception instead of the rule.
    That's my point. Vancouver is building a new Skytrain line, expanding and renewing the trolley fleet (with 188 40ft trolleys, and 60 60ft articulated trolleys, new wiring to maximize use of the overhead and new power supply to handle the 60ft articulated trolleys), planning for significant extensions to the Expo and Millenium lines (extending the lines out to UBC, Newton and Coquitlam), upgrading the existing Skytrain by lengthening platforms to accommodate longer train (going from 80m platforms to 110m platforms to allow 6-car Mark II trains to operate), enlarging station entrances and passages to reduce crowding, building new bus rapid transit lines (Hastings BRT, 41st Avenue BRT, Port Mann BRT, Golden Ears BRT, King George BRT), building new stations on the commuter rail line and building a new third SeaBus. Focusing on one form of transit at the expense of others is not good.

    All I'm saying is that Edmonton could make much better use of the existing trolley network if it was really committed to do that. Why not include the cost of moving trolley wires in major road construction projects to keep the buses running? Why do trolley's never run on the weekend? Why is the maintenance garage off the overhead network (so you always have the expense of a tow for routine servicing)?
    Last edited by lightrail; 15-03-2008 at 02:06 PM.

  22. #222

    Default

    Hear hear!

    If we can really get the LRT down to Millwoods simultaneously with the NLRT, and WLRT, and please please please YEG, I'll gladly back off the need for trolleys on those routes, but for #$%&'()'s sake can we ditch this imaginary notion that destroying the trolley infrastructure will actually save us anything? Honestly, show us the real numbers behind your assumptions, people.

    Yes, the old beaters are old beaters already. But building LRT justifies more diesel buses in the same way a diet coke justifies three big macs. Think about it please.

    Honestly I'm starting to wonder if people have just been sniffing too many fumes. Why do you think we banned smoking?
    Last edited by JayBee; 20-03-2008 at 07:35 AM.

  23. #223

    Default

    My preferred routes for LRT are:

    201 Northeast, through downtown and U of A, then out to West Edmonton via 87 Avenue (I agree the University Avenue route is the best

    202 Millwoods, along 23rd Avenue to Century Park, then to Southgate, U of A, joining 201 line at a junction just south of Health Sciences Station, through downtown, leaving the 201 line at an underground junction just north of Churchill Station (the junction is already roughed in), surfacing, then via 105 Av, 106 Street to the west side of NAIT (my plan includes closing YXD and developing into high density mixed use with LRT being the focal point). From there north to Northgate, Casteldown.

    203 would be a line running from St Albert south to the YEG, using the 202 line. Providing additional capacity in the centre sections and to Century Park and new service south of Hendy Drive

    Frequencies - 201 and 202 base of 10 minutes each daytime, 6 min each in the peak; 203 base of ev. 20 minutes daytime, 12 min in the peak.

  24. #224
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    /\ these plans will ensure that the city of edmonton will continue to grow north and south and not east and west. wee need to be round, not weiner-like

  25. #225

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee View Post
    ... but for #$%&'()'s sake can we ditch this imaginary notion that destroying the trolley infrastructure will actually save us anything? Honestly, show us the real numbers behind your assumptions, people.

    Honestly I'm starting to wonder if people have just been sniffing too many fumes. Why do you think we banned smoking?
    At the WBRT Council meetings, Council was reminded that San Francisco has added more trolleys to their fleet and now half of SFO's transit system is electric. Trolleys also are on the NextBus system and you can find out when the next will arrive via internet, cell phone or at the automated signs at stations. Trolleys and bus routes are being sacrificed to boost LRT demand in a concerted effort by forcing people onto LRT.

    I for one who like to see an economist do a full cost accounting on the real cost and benefit analysis of LRT. No one can demonstrate real numbers of how many people will use the three WLRT stations without making massive changes to bus routes, large Park'n'ride lots and determine how many users will be new to transit. The majority of WLRT users will be current bus users who may find that the WLRT will take longer to get to where they are going (not necessarily downtown) because they will need to take a bus to LRT, transfer to LRT and another bus to their destination. Currently riders can take one or two buses to get to their destination will find routes cut or changed to terminate at LRT stations.

    I feel that ETS is letting electric trolleys die. I was several times in San Francisco lately and I never saw one electric trolley out of service or disconnected from the wires. They went up legendary grades and made tight turns and use a pneumatic suspensions system on the pick-ups. In Edmonton they still use old GM trolleys with a cheap spring system.

    I also find a double standard where ETS says that they must keep a diesel bus in backup for every electric trolley. The LRT can fail in the same way or an accident at a crossing or a flooded tunnel can cripple the system. Does ETS keep a dozens of diesel buses in reserve for this potential problem, NO!

    Trolleys are quiet, clean and routes can more easily be changed than LRT with many more stops to make the system more accessible. LRT may need fewer drivers, but if they must hire dozens of security guards what savings in manpower is there?
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  26. #226
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    McKernan, Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12

    Default

    Well try telling that to the city council or ETS for that matter, it's like talking to a wall.

  27. #227

    Default

    News from Vancouver

    On March 28, 2008 the Translink board will meet to considering releasing funding for an additional 20 articulated electric trolley buses - these buses were approved in 2007. The board will also consider releasing an additional $6+ million to substitute 14 articulated electric trolley buses for 14 articualted hybrid buses that were ordered last year. Not sure if these 14 are additional to the 20, or contained within it - but Vancouver is desperate for capacity increases on the overcrowded trolley routes.

    The Board will also consider releasing funding for 14 new Mark 2 Skytrain cars to increase capacity on the Expo Line. These will be used to increase the length of trains. This is in addition to 34 new cars already on order. There are approximately 65 trains in service at the peak times with headways of 100 seconds.

    Translink is also undertaking major renovations on Main Street, Broadway and Metrotown Stations to increase capacity. Platforms at Metrotown will be lengthened to reduce crowding and to allow two trains travelling in the same direction to stop in the station simultaneously (you can do this on an automated system with moving block signalling).

    Finally - the Airport branch of the Canada Line will be energised in April and train testing will begin in late April on that line. The Canada Line is ahead of schedule and should be open by fall of 2009.
    Last edited by lightrail; 28-03-2008 at 02:36 PM.

  28. #228
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    183

    Default

    Does anyone know who the manufacturer of #6000 is? If I were to guess, I'd say NewFlyer. Am I right?
    When will we know the results of this 'test project'
    How about the hybrid test project?
    Non semper erit aestas

  29. #229
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    McKernan, Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12

    Default

    The bus is designed and manufactured by New Flyer and the electrics are by Vossloh Kiepe. As for the results of the test, #6000 is heading back to Vancouver in June sometime, so we should be hearing something after that.. Let's hope the city makes the right decision.

  30. #230

    Default

    Just to confirm that Translink in Vancouver has ordered another 34 articulated trolley buses - bringing the total number of articulated trolley buses up to 74, and a total trolley fleet of 262 buses.

    Come on Edmonton - get your order in now.

  31. #231

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darkwalker View Post
    When will we know the results of this 'test project'
    How about the hybrid test project?
    About Edmonton's test overall, the only thing I've heard is that 2 of the 6 hybrids (the ISE/New Flyer ones) have already been withdrawn from service entirely. I don't know if anyone can say the true reason, but somehow I don't think it's because "They're so good that we're already convinced".

    Meanwhile, according to Lightrail, Vancouver's "testing" has just seen a replacement of an order for 14 hybrid articulateds with 14 trolleys, with 20 more for good measure. That has to be pretty significant too.

    (Of course in Vancouver they don't have to put up with people saying "but we want to hand over bonus tax money to the 'Alberta' (read 'Calgary') Oil Charities." )

    Meanwhile in Victoria, one of, if not the first city in Canada to test "environmentally friendly" hybrids, it appears they also have given up on hybrids, citing that "there's no business case for them". (surprise surprise) Unfortunately for them, that probably means they're just going back to pure diesel.

    Come on Edmonton, the pendulum has swung. Vancouver, the home of Ballard, now has more articulated trolleys on order than we even have wires for. Dayton is getting more, Boston is getting more, San Francisco is getting more, California is considering building more systems. Why on earth would we be the only city going backwards? We already have a great start in wires, and nobody is arguing that we get rid of the old clunkers. We need a modern trolley fleet!
    Last edited by JayBee; 05-04-2008 at 04:21 AM. Reason: to add "surprise surprise".

  32. #232

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee View Post
    Come on Edmonton, the pendulum has swung. Vancouver, the home of Ballard, now has more articulated trolleys on order than we even have wires for. Dayton is getting more, Boston is getting more, San Francisco is getting more, California is considering building more systems. Why on earth would we be the only city going backwards? We already have a great start in wires, and nobody is arguing that we get rid of the old clunkers. We need a modern trolley fleet!
    I think it is a bit early to be writing off hybrids right now, just before Lithium technology is about to hit the market. Rumors are the next Prius will be lithium, which has reduced component size and costs. Additionally, the GM Volt lithium batteries are now undergoing real world testing in stock vehicles. Lithium will revolutionalize hybrid technology, the same way peoples cell phones have been revolutionalized over the last few years.

  33. #233

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Darkwalker View Post
    When will we know the results of this 'test project'
    How about the hybrid test project?
    About Edmonton's test overall, the only thing I've heard is that 2 of the 6 hybrids (the ISE/New Flyer ones) have already been withdrawn from service entirely. I don't know if anyone can say the true reason, but somehow I don't think it's because "They're so good that we're already convinced".

    Meanwhile, according to Lightrail, Vancouver's "testing" has just seen a replacement of an order for 14 hybrid articulateds with 14 trolleys, with 20 more for good measure. That has to be pretty significant too.

    (Of course in Vancouver they don't have to put up with people saying "but we want to hand over bonus tax money to the 'Alberta' (read 'Calgary') Oil Charities." )

    Meanwhile in Victoria, one of, if not the first city in Canada to test "environmentally friendly" hybrids, it appears they also have given up on hybrids, citing that "there's no business case for them". (surprise surprise) Unfortunately for them, that probably means they're just going back to pure diesel.

    Come on Edmonton, the pendulum has swung. Vancouver, the home of Ballard, now has more articulated trolleys on order than we even have wires for. Dayton is getting more, Boston is getting more, San Francisco is getting more, California is considering building more systems. Why on earth would we be the only city going backwards? We already have a great start in wires, and nobody is arguing that we get rid of the old clunkers. We need a modern trolley fleet!
    I recently made a point of using the trolleys in Vancouver (and the Vancouver one here) because I accepted the challenge from the trolley advocates of "Try a modern trolley before you decide." I still saw lots and lots of dewiring incidents in Vancouver - an average of one a day for the 6 days I was there - and not one stalled diesel bus in an equivalent timeframe. If the modern trollies have battery capacity to keep them going when they slip off the wires, they haven't implemented it in Vancouver. Still not convinced.
    City Centre Airport is to the sky as False Creek is to the ocean.

  34. #234
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    McKernan, Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12

    Default

    Well, here's a video of #6000 going through Coliseum on battery.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YminK1OdnUQ

  35. #235
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Holyrood
    Posts
    4,846

    Default

    ^ It looked like it was on the wires, to me...

  36. #236
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,153

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RTA View Post
    ^ It looked like it was on the wires, to me...
    The aerials are retracted, that is battery power.

  37. #237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Darkwalker View Post
    When will we know the results of this 'test project'
    How about the hybrid test project?
    About Edmonton's test overall, the only thing I've heard is that 2 of the 6 hybrids (the ISE/New Flyer ones) have already been withdrawn from service entirely. I don't know if anyone can say the true reason, but somehow I don't think it's because "They're so good that we're already convinced".

    Meanwhile, according to Lightrail, Vancouver's "testing" has just seen a replacement of an order for 14 hybrid articulateds with 14 trolleys, with 20 more for good measure. That has to be pretty significant too.

    (Of course in Vancouver they don't have to put up with people saying "but we want to hand over bonus tax money to the 'Alberta' (read 'Calgary') Oil Charities." )

    Meanwhile in Victoria, one of, if not the first city in Canada to test "environmentally friendly" hybrids, it appears they also have given up on hybrids, citing that "there's no business case for them". (surprise surprise) Unfortunately for them, that probably means they're just going back to pure diesel.
    Yep - the three hybrids are still in service and they plan to continue running them in the regular fleet. They're kind of cool - sound a bit like a trolley bus inside when they set off, then a diesel at higher speeds. Victoria has not withdrawn the hybrids, they're just not ordering anymore of them.

    The new Nova Clean Air buses are just as fuel efficient, don't emit any harmful exhaust and are cheaper - plus they're all steel bodies, meaning they'll last a lot longer. All new buses will be the Nova Clean Air (except for the double deckers, Nova don't make those).

    The Nova's are sweet buses. Very comfortable, sleek design.

  38. #238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lux View Post

    I recently made a point of using the trolleys in Vancouver (and the Vancouver one here) because I accepted the challenge from the trolley advocates of "Try a modern trolley before you decide." I still saw lots and lots of dewiring incidents in Vancouver - an average of one a day for the 6 days I was there - and not one stalled diesel bus in an equivalent timeframe. If the modern trollies have battery capacity to keep them going when they slip off the wires, they haven't implemented it in Vancouver. Still not convinced.
    They had problems in the early days with the high tech sensors. I think it's solved - last time I was in Vancouver I didn't see one trolley off the wire. The battery is for getting around obstacles or work crews working on the overhead, the problem with using it when de-wired is you still have to re-wire at some point - might as well do it right a way.

  39. #239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Esturk View Post
    Well, here's a video of #6000 going through Coliseum on battery.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YminK1OdnUQ
    What I like about that video is the clean electric bus passing the diesel belching obnoxious fumes - brilliant!

    BTW - why doesn't Edmonton Transit require operators to switch of the engines when sitting at the terminus or a layover? Is it the cold weather? In Vancouver and Victoria, diesel buses must switch off engines when on a layover, even at night - I've gotten on lots of buses with no interior lights on - they'll do this even if the layover is only a few minutes. You'll rarely see a bus sitting at a bus stop in Victoria or Vancouver with it's engine idling.

    BTW again - how is 6000 coping with Edmonton's winter? The bus was never designed for that kind of cold or snow. The interior heating is probably under powered for Edmonton. Just curious?
    Last edited by lightrail; 06-04-2008 at 12:48 AM.

  40. #240

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lightrail View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by lux View Post

    I recently made a point of using the trolleys in Vancouver (and the Vancouver one here) because I accepted the challenge from the trolley advocates of "Try a modern trolley before you decide." I still saw lots and lots of dewiring incidents in Vancouver - an average of one a day for the 6 days I was there - and not one stalled diesel bus in an equivalent timeframe. If the modern trollies have battery capacity to keep them going when they slip off the wires, they haven't implemented it in Vancouver. Still not convinced.
    They had problems in the early days with the high tech sensors. I think it's solved - last time I was in Vancouver I didn't see one trolley off the wire. The battery is for getting around obstacles or work crews working on the overhead, the problem with using it when de-wired is you still have to re-wire at some point - might as well do it right a way.
    This was about 4 weeks ago, and if you might as well do it right away, then having battery backup is useless, in my opinion. I just don't dig the trolleys from a value and convenience perspective. Even safety - they can't just sit in the middle of an intersection...
    City Centre Airport is to the sky as False Creek is to the ocean.

  41. #241

    Default

    Video of Vancouver's articulated trolley 2501 on a test run. The inside seating is for high capacity - less seats, more room to stand. I like the butt bars in the articulated join, better than seats.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2TnJD3uLtQ

  42. #242

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lightrail View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee View Post
    Meanwhile in Victoria, one of, if not the first city in Canada to test "environmentally friendly" hybrids, it appears they also have given up on hybrids, citing that "there's no business case for them". (surprise surprise) Unfortunately for them, that probably means they're just going back to pure diesel.
    Yep - the three hybrids are still in service and they plan to continue running them in the regular fleet. They're kind of cool - sound a bit like a trolley bus inside when they set off, then a diesel at higher speeds. Victoria has not withdrawn the hybrids, they're just not ordering anymore of them.
    I didn't mean "withdrawn and replaced", I meant "stopped buying and resumed buying diesel." The point being that from a context of "testing hybrids" they're not doing too well.

    The new Nova Clean Air buses are just as fuel efficient, don't emit any harmful exhaust and are cheaper - plus they're all steel bodies, meaning they'll last a lot longer. All new buses will be the Nova Clean Air (except for the double deckers, Nova don't make those).
    While they emit less harmful exhaust, it's still quite the stretch to say "not any." Even supposed "clean diesel" with a particulate "trap" emits 10 to 15 times the amount of harmful emissions as the same amount of gasoline, and gasoline combustion is still a significant polluter. Unless Victoria is talking natural gas, which would not be worth complaining about except the noise (and the costs), they're still major polluters. On par with a hybrid for fuel consumption and pollution, yes. A trolley, no. (Which really shows the marginality of the accomplishment in hybrids thus far.)

    Also, I think you mean stainless steel?

    The Nova's are sweet buses. Very comfortable, sleek design.
    Agreed fully. New Flyer's "R" line (including 6000) are okay, but still look too much like the wooden boxes they are. Say, whatever happened to "invero"?

  43. #243

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lux View Post
    This was about 4 weeks ago, and if you might as well do it right away, then having battery backup is useless, in my opinion.
    I presume it's an issue of it being safer to re-wire when the bus is physically under the wires rather than off to the side. If that's the case, perhaps they should move the wires to between the lanes so they can rewire at the next stop. I don't know though, because I haven't seen what you claim to have. (Not doubting your veracity, relax, but there can be a lot to consider.)

    In any case, the de-wired YouTube video proves it's not a technical limitation of the vehicle.

    I just don't dig the trolleys from a value and convenience perspective.
    You appear not to dig them at least, but where are you getting your "value" information? Translink (Vancouver) says their diesels cost around 44 cents per kilometer to fuel, while the trolleys cost around 13 cents, and less to maintain. This does not take into account the fact that they, (provincially) own the power company they buy from, as do we. This means that any profit the respective power companies (BC Hydro or Epcor) make on the power goes to the same people (via Translink or ETS) who are paying for it. In other words, the cost of powering trolleys in either city is effectively the cost of generation itself.

    Even safety - they can't just sit in the middle of an intersection..
    Were they? That much I would agree with.
    Last edited by JayBee; 06-04-2008 at 04:27 AM.

  44. #244

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    I think it is a bit early to be writing off hybrids right now, just before Lithium technology is about to hit the market. Rumors are the next Prius will be lithium, which has reduced component size and costs. Additionally, the GM Volt lithium batteries are now undergoing real world testing in stock vehicles. Lithium will revolutionalize hybrid technology, the same way peoples cell phones have been revolutionalized over the last few years.

    If it's early to write them off it's also early to buy them, no?

    (As trolley competitors it's not too early to write them off anyway, as explained before in case you were reading. In case you weren't, I'll write it again and you can either ignore it again or fail to grasp the significance again as it suits you.)

    Furthermore, any benefit lithium brings to hybrids it obviously also brings to trolleys and dual modes as well.

    I hope more than you realise that battery technology catches up with it's potential ( ), at which point we can seriously look at replacing the suburban low-frequency routes with it. But in the core? On high frequency routes? Why, pray tell?

  45. #245

    Default

    okay trolley supporter - let's get on to Council and get on the trolley bandwagon. Edmonton is the only city with a trolley system in North America that has not committed to extending or renewing the rolling stock. Come on Edmonton, get with it.

    Philadelphia has ordered new trolley buses for it's fleet; so has San Francisco and Seattle. Vancouver you know. Also, in Vancouver, they're extending the overhead by adding new overhead along a 5.5km stretch of Marine Drive in south Vancouver

    --------------------------------------------
    Beginning in February 2008
    TransLink will be extending its trolley wire service between the Vancouver Transit Centre (Hudson and Marine) and Victoria St. (along Marine Drive). The project will help TransLink achieve its goal of placing more zero emission trolley buses in service for Lower Mainland residents. The first phase of the project will go to Main St. and be completed by June.

    The extension includes the installment of new trolley poles and upgrading of existing poles, the installation of six feeder wires that supply power to the trolley network and the trolley contact wires. The installation of the poles and wires will be done block by block on the north and south side of Marine Drive.

    What this means to the Community
    Better Lighting. The new and upgraded trolley poles will have streetlights ensuring better visibility for pedestrians and neighborhood residents.

    Fewer Operational Disruptions. The wire extension ensures extra electrical power in order to meet increased service levels on both Main St. and Victoria St.

    $635,000 in Operational Cost Savings. The wire extension will result in a $635,000 a year operational savings for TransLink and will help with on-time trolley bus performance.

    Less Noise and Congestion. The extension of trolley wire service will result in a reduction in noise and congestion on residential streets. Trolley buses will move directly to the beginning of their routes without "dead-heading" (traveling while not in service) through residential neighbourhoods.

    New Service. The trolley wire extension will enable new service to the Marine Drive Canada Line station upon its completion in 2009.

  46. #246

    Default electric trolley supporter

    Quote Originally Posted by lightrail View Post
    okay trolley supporter - let's get on to Council and get on the trolley bandwagon. Edmonton is the only city with a trolley system in North America that has not committed to extending or renewing the rolling stock. Come on Edmonton, get with it.

    Philadelphia has ordered new trolley buses for it's fleet; so has San Francisco and Seattle. Vancouver you know. Also, in Vancouver, they're extending the overhead by adding new overhead along a 5.5km stretch of Marine Drive in south Vancouver.
    I am becoming a big electric trolley supporter as the best technology to meet the demands of Edmonton

    - Cheaper to build than LRT
    - Cleaner than diesels
    - Quieter than hybrids
    - Can be green powered
    - Lines can be installed in months, not years or decades
    - No expropriations or ripped up neighbourhoods
    - Network system integrates well with buses
    - Trolleys excellent for urban areas
    - Diesels great for suburban areas

    A dozen more can be listed but I am preaching to the choir
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  47. #247

    Default

    100% in here. Whether people who dislike trolleys breathe or not, I can't tell you, but I hope they benefit just as much as anyone else.

    I'll PM you, lightrail. I just happen to have a little more time coming up and nothing better to do.

  48. #248

    Default

    Hello Group

    Booz Allen Hamilton has been hired by ETS to write a report recommending that Edmonton's Trolley fleet and infrastructure should be scraped.

    Booz Allen Hamilton wrote a report for Wellington New Zealand recommending that trolley buses are a better investment than diesel buses.

    My question of the day is, why does the Booz Allen Hamilton report state that to buy new trolley buses in Edmonton they would cost $895,850 whereas diesels would cost $381,800

    In Wellington New Zealand they will cost $NZ460,000 a trolley bus compared with $NZ380,000 for a 3-axle diesel
    The NZ Dollar is trading at $0.80 Canadian. Pulling out my calculator that NZ trolley will only cost $368,000 or 41% of the cost of Edmonton's trolleys

    Wellington has the same type of trolleys Edmonton has. They remanufactured the trolleys by removing the old chassis and building new modern low floor trolleys with rewound motors, new electronics, new wire poles for less than half the cost.

    We can run all of Edmonton's electric trolley's using Epcor's EnVest Renewable Energy Program using green power.

    [url]http://www.epcor.ca/Customers/Commercial+and+Industrial/EnVest/EnVestRE.htm[/b]


    News Story by Annette King 10 May, 2007
    New trolleys for Wellington applauded
    Transport Minister Annette King says the signing of a contract for 61 new trolley buses in Wellington is a proud day for the capital, a great boost for public transport and a fine example of "environmental sustainability in action".
    Greater Wellington Regional Council chair Ian Buchanan and Infratil managing director and NZ Bus director Lloyd Morrison signed the contract for the 61 new buses, each worth about $500,000, in Wellington today.
    Ms King, who spoke at the signing ceremony, said the contract signalled the "rebirth of a Wellington icon. "More than that, however, trolley buses demonstrate environmental sustainability in action," she said. "The Government is meeting half of the approximately $6.5 million annual cost of running and renewing the trollies, and improving the overhead system and power supply."
    "Wellington's existing 60-bus trolley fleet covers 1.6 million kilometres annually, powered by four Giggawatt hours of electricity. That's the same amount of electricity used by about 500 households, or the equivalent of the amount of electricity produced by about half of one of the new windmills recently installed at TrustPower's new Tararua windfarm.

    "Diesel buses covering the same distance would use 600,000 litres of diesel a year, producing 1600 tonnes of CO2 emissions. The smooth, electric-powered motors help make the inner city cleaner and quieter, and an even better place in which to work and play."

    Ms King says that "anything we can do as a country to reduce CO2 emissions, to move toward renewable energy sources, and to increase the use of public transport is to be applauded. That's why today is such a great day, and why Wellington should be congratulated for its enterprise and initiative."
    "I want to particularly acknowledge Land Transport New Zealand for their hard work over the past year, and Greater Wellington Regional Council for negotiating this contract with NZ Bus. Together, we have ensured trolley buses remain on Wellington's roads."
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  49. #249

    Default Scrap the whole fleet?

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Hello Group

    Booz Allen Hamilton has been hired by ETS to write a report recommending that Edmonton's Trolley fleet and infrastructure should be scraped.
    This was in today's Sun: http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Edmo...00986-sun.html

    For those more familiar with the report I have a few questions:
    1.) Which source of energy will outpace their estimated costs in the report , electricity or diesel?
    2.) I am skeptical of the line about trolleys being more expensive to maintain. Electric trolleys are an old technology, hybrids are not. Even hybrid cars come with a warning about huge repair costs when they are out of warranty, what would make our hybrid busses any different.
    3.) If electric trolleys/LRT transit systems would be used exclusively in high density areas such as downtown, would there be a significant improvement in local air quality and noise levels?

    Economically, perhaps we do not have the ridership to support long lines of trolley transit, such as the north to south routes, but there is a reason these things are widely used around the world...
    Last edited by Medwards; 18-05-2008 at 11:05 PM. Reason: fixing tags

  50. #250

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RRH View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Hello Group

    Booz Allen Hamilton has been hired by ETS to write a report recommending that Edmonton's Trolley fleet and infrastructure should be scraped.
    This was in today's Sun: http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Edmo...00986-sun.html

    For those more familiar with the report I have a few questions:
    1.) Which source of energy will outpace their estimated costs in the report , electricity or diesel?
    2.) I am skeptical of the line about trolleys being more expensive to maintain. Electric trolleys are an old technology, hybrids are not. Even hybrid cars come with a warning about huge repair costs when they are out of warranty, what would make our hybrid busses any different.
    3.) If electric trolleys/LRT transit systems would be used exclusively in high density areas such as downtown, would there be a significant improvement in local air quality and noise levels?

    Economically, perhaps we do not have the ridership to support long lines of trolley transit, such as the north to south routes, but there is a reason these things are widely used around the world...
    Congratulations Edmonton on having such a short-sighted city council and transportation planning staff.

    In this day of Peak Oil, diesel technology is the only way to go - after all, non-renewable oil is going to be around forever, whereas other ways to produce electricity, like wind and water and solar will run out in a few years time.

    So go ahead and scrap the trolleys - you can cry about it a few years later when the price of gas hits $5 a litre.

  51. #251

    Default

    Just read "Bozo Idiots" report - that is the most biased report I've ever read. With their logic, we should be scrapping the LRT too as it also uses electricity produced by coal fired power stations.

  52. #252
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    McKernan, Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12

    Default

    If anything, Edmonton should be replacing diesels with hybrids.

  53. #253

    Default

    Because Edmonton's electricity is supplied by coal fired power stations, I recommend to city council, in addition to replacing electric trolleys with diesel buses, that:

    1. the electric LRT cars be scrapped and replaced with Budd diesel Railcars
    2. all of the streetlights be replaced with 1890s era gas lamps
    3. all elevators and escalators in city owned buildings be retrofitted and hauled up and down by oxen

    Doesn't matter that street level emissions will be through the roof, the net result is less coal generated electricity and therefore less green house gas emitted into the sky around Wabamum and a reduction in Alberta's greenhouses gas emissions (we won't talk about the oil sands).

  54. #254

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Esturk View Post
    Well, here's a video of #6000 going through Coliseum on battery.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YminK1OdnUQ
    Great video!

    Not only is the electric trolley on battery power, it is passing the diesel bus which is idling with the doors open. With the proposed anti-idling bylaw, let me be the first one to give ETS a ticket!
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  55. #255
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    16

    Default Flyer Trolleys are over priced IMHO

    The price for the new trolleys bought for Vancouver, and of which one was leased for Edmonton for a few, seems out of line.
    Take a hybrid series driven bus (that is one where the diesel drives a generator/alternator that in turn drives the motor that drives the wheels). remove the big diesel engine and generator, gas tank etc. In their place put a small gas turbine or diesel driven genback for emergency power. Add the pole assembly. Reprogram the power control unit, and perhaps add a few more batteries on the roof. It does not make sense that the price should be any more than for the original hybrid unit, let alone add nearly the price of a whole new bus to the base.
    I suspect that Flyer counted on, and was successful in so doing - the reluctance of North American transit systems to buy from over seas. They priced high expecting that the the systems would consider that the compatible mechanical components would keep the mechanics and drivers happy.
    The funny thing is, Edmonton Transit, at one time, faced a similar situation. GM had a lock on transit buses. ETS felt that it was paying way more than necessary. Accordingly, they purchased a small fleet of buses from Japan (they were dreadful) and the UK. The buses worked to send a message. GM recognized the threat and bids came in more reasonably subsequently. Ironically, the people who made intercity buses in Winnipeg (Western Flyer) decided that maybe they could do well making urban buses. They did a deal with American Motors in the US, and that gave birth to Flyer Bus. I wonder if a similar bold move (bringing in buses from Europe) might not also prove effective.

  56. #256

    Default

    When I was in Vancouver this February, why did I watch a trolley with the poles off the wires stuck halfway around the corner at an intersection? Why wouldn't they just have used the battery?
    City Centre Airport is to the sky as False Creek is to the ocean.

  57. #257

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lux
    When I was in Vancouver this February, why did I watch a trolley with the poles off the wires stuck halfway around the corner at an intersection? Why wouldn't they just have used the battery?
    As I said above, I don't know what you saw. Was it in fact a new trolley? Were the poles entangled in something? Were no cars behind it? Did the driver just feel like doing that? Does Vancouver have some archaic policy in place? Was there a cat in front of the bus? Was there a human underneath it? Was there a true mechanical failure?

    And also as I said above, the bus in Edmonton in the Youtube video clearly shows that all else being equal, it's not a technical limitation of the vehicle in Edmonton, in winter to boot.

    But look ho: can you tell me why this happened?








    I'm not actually inferring or equating anything here, but the point actually is, it's not easy to play forensic transit investigator. (The fact that a diesel bus may be unreliable when trying to restart from it's idling stoppage is a different issue...)
    Last edited by JayBee; 05-06-2008 at 09:18 AM. Reason: added the final sentence.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  58. #258
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    237

    Exclamation Report calls for end of Edmonton's trolley buses

    Report calls for end of Edmonton's trolley buses

    Gordon Kent, edmontonjournal.com
    Published: 12:01 pm June 5 2008

    EDMONTON - Edmonton should phase out its trolley system by 2010 and replace the fleet with 47 new hybrid buses, says a city report released today.

    The move would save about $100 million by 2027 due to cheaper maintenance, money saved by eliminating expensive overhead power lines and the lower cost of buying hybrids instead of new trolleys, the report says.

    This comparison takes into account an $11.6 million charge to decommission the overhead system.

    http://www.canada.com/edmontonjourna...d-02f7a86bae30

  59. #259
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    96

    Default

    ^ Or we could spend $11.6 million to buy brand new trolleys....surely that would reduce the amount of maintenance needed wouldn't it?

  60. #260

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by lux
    When I was in Vancouver this February, why did I watch a trolley with the poles off the wires stuck halfway around the corner at an intersection? Why wouldn't they just have used the battery?
    As I said above, I don't know what you saw. Was it in fact a new trolley? Were the poles entangled in something? Were no cars behind it? Did the driver just feel like doing that? Does Vancouver have some archaic policy in place? Was there a cat in front of the bus? Was there a human underneath it? Was there a true mechanical failure?

    And also as I said above, the bus in Edmonton in the Youtube video clearly shows that all else being equal, it's not a technical limitation of the vehicle in Edmonton, in winter to boot.

    But look ho: can you tell me why this happened?



    I'm not actually inferring or equating anything here, but the point actually is, it's not easy to play forensic transit investigator. (The fact that a diesel bus may be unreliable when trying to restart from it's idling stoppage is a different issue...)
    If I show you a picture of a trolley with the poles off the line, I think what you need to show me in response is a diesel bus that has lost its gas tank and has it dragging on the ground behind it, and maybe the bus driver standing in traffic behind a 20cm orange pylon struggling to reattach the gas tank to the diesel bus as traffic zooms around.

    I don't know about the bus in Vancouver, other than when trolley people on here talk about trolleys, they talk a lot about how good Vancouver has it, and they don't ever say "except the old trolleys."

    I will always rate a trolley with poles that come off the wires as a Zero out of Ten as a means of transportation, or as a sensible transit investment for our city (or any city). I believe lately you've been pushing the environmental angle most of all, and so as to try to provide for some common ground, I'll go for a tram with a proper pantograph. I'm not bothered by the aesthetics - I think they look neat supplying the power from overhead - I just don't think it works with trolley poles. Heck, if the technology moves along fast enough, I'd take a battery powered bus that is 100% electric. You could burn your coal for the electricity. I'd be able to keep the bus zooming. The world would be happy. How close is that technology? 10 years?
    City Centre Airport is to the sky as False Creek is to the ocean.

  61. #261

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lux View Post
    Heck, if the technology moves along fast enough, I'd take a battery powered bus that is 100% electric. You could burn your coal for the electricity. I'd be able to keep the bus zooming. The world would be happy. How close is that technology? 10 years?
    There is an electric bus in New Zealand that has been operating for more than a decade now. It has a small engine as a backup, but this is not operated when the bus is running, so most passangers don't even know about the engine:


    http://www.redbus.co.nz/new-zealand/...-city-shuttle/



    We are on the verge of technology (lithium batteries), which will make such buses even more efficient. They don't have the massive infrastructure costs of a trolley, and can go anywhere the demand is.

  62. #262

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lux View Post
    If I show you a picture of a trolley with the poles off the line, I think what you need to show me in response is a diesel bus that has lost its gas tank and has it dragging on the ground behind it, and maybe the bus driver standing in traffic behind a 20cm orange pylon struggling to reattach the gas tank to the diesel bus as traffic zooms around.
    lux, you absolutely have to distinguish between the old trolleys and the new ones. In Edmonton our old trolleys looked like our old GM diesels, but in Vancouver, their old trolleys were made by New Flyer, and so they have that, uh, box aesthetic, just like the newer diesels.

    Nobody I've seen is arguing for traffic stopping batteryless trolleys for Edmonton.

    I don't know about the bus in Vancouver, other than when trolley people on here talk about trolleys, they talk a lot about how good Vancouver has it, and they don't ever say "except the old trolleys."
    We talk about how good Van is for having ordered new ones, but Van is still in the midst of the fleet renewal. They have clearly decided to take full advantage of the technology as they've ordered more articulated trolleys ahead of hybrids (tellingly, I fully expect) but they still have a large number of old generation buses out on the wires.

    I will always rate a trolley with poles that come off the wires as a Zero out of Ten as a means of transportation, or as a sensible transit investment for our city (or any city).
    Yeah, and you justified that by saying something like "Edmonton should flatter Calgary by trashing the trolleys." Recall?
    I believe lately you've been pushing the environmental angle most of all,
    In my case, actually, you can go back as far as my first posts on the matter and you'll see I have always been pushing health, and looking at ways that we could take advantage of trolleys in order to persue community health. It is my number one concern, although as someone who has studied economics, the way Electricity works in Edmonton in the future (especially owning EPCOR...) I do tout that angle as well.

    This isn't a new thing at all, but when people propose hybrids, there are matters of engineering that make it rather plain that they're unlikely, for example, to be anything more than make-work-projects for mechanics.

    But yeah, number one is health.

    Do you think health is appropriate to fall under the "environmental" heading? I don't think many people would. I have only ever mentioned global warming in passing, as it's plain that the power company we pay generates their hugest proportion from coal. I understand and accept that, but the key concepts are:

    1. The distance from our lungs.

    2. Genessee actually burns cleaner for health than a diesel bus because of very advanced scrubbers and traps, and unit 3 for it's "super critical" technology which is basically just more efficient again.

    3. Trolleys could even in my wildest dreams not account for 1% of the electricity already generated around Edmonton with coal. Meanwhile diesel buses (including hybrids) almost certainly account for over 50% of the pollution attributable to moving humans around the city.

    4. As soon as it comes on line, trolleys are able to use any renewable source we have now (such as the Bighorn and Brazeau hydro power stations) or the next 20,000 solar panels that go up in the next few years.

    and so as to try to provide for some common ground, I'll go for a tram with a proper pantograph. I'm not bothered by the aesthetics - I think they look neat supplying the power from overhead - I just don't think it works with trolley poles.
    Again, I'll not disagree, but just remember, you're talking about trams, which cost more per vehicle, cost the same amount (essentially) to fuel or maintain, and cost exponentially more to create running infrastructure. Meanwhile we already have all the running infrastructure trolleys would ever need.

    You (and certain others) can't simply say "trams instead of trolleys" unless you can say where the additional money is coming from. It's absolutely misleading, if not irresponsible, to let yourself believe, let alone tell others that destroying the trolleys could possibly pay for a single tram.

    Heck, if the technology moves along fast enough, I'd take a battery powered bus that is 100% electric. You could burn your coal for the electricity. I'd be able to keep the bus zooming. The world would be happy. How close is that technology? 10 years?
    Modern trolleys are already exactly that: battery powered buses that are 100% electric, which use coal and keep zooming.

    Yet the world isn't happy.

    The technology is here now, and people who don't realise that are destroying the potential for no reason.
    Last edited by JayBee; 07-06-2008 at 09:04 AM.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  63. #263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by lux View Post
    Heck, if the technology moves along fast enough, I'd take a battery powered bus that is 100% electric. You could burn your coal for the electricity. I'd be able to keep the bus zooming. The world would be happy. How close is that technology? 10 years?
    There is an electric bus in New Zealand that has been operating for more than a decade now. It has a small engine as a backup, but this is not operated when the bus is running, so most passangers don't even know about the engine:


    http://www.redbus.co.nz/new-zealand/...-city-shuttle/



    We are on the verge of technology (lithium batteries), which will make such buses even more efficient. They don't have the massive infrastructure costs of a trolley, and can go anywhere the demand is.
    The infrastructure costs of already built lines? Good point.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  64. #264

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee View Post
    The infrastructure costs of already built lines? Good point.
    $100m + of maintenance that no-one in our tight labour market wants to do, but you, it seems.

  65. #265

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee View Post
    The infrastructure costs of already built lines? Good point.
    $100m + of maintenance that no-one in our tight labour market wants to do, but you, it seems.

    Source?
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  66. #266

    Default

    (Hint, that's not written anywhere outside moahunter's imagination...)
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  67. #267

    Default

    Checkel's research showed that purchasing and operating 47 trolley buses over their expected lifespan of 18 years will cost a staggering $183 million, compared to $57 million for the same number of hybrid buses or $50 million for diesel buses.
    Most of that cost differential is maintenace Jaybee relative to a bus. If you can subtract, you will figure out that "my" $100m infrastructure cost/liability was conservative
    Last edited by moahunter; 07-06-2008 at 09:34 PM.

  68. #268

    Default

    I have no words for your false attribution.

    Regarding your inability to parse even your own statements, I refer you to this, this, and this.

    Naturally I don't expect you'll get that any of them at this point.

    This is still not an endorsement of Chekel or his numbers, by the way.
    Last edited by JayBee; 07-06-2008 at 02:40 PM.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  69. #269

    Default

    Jaybee - infrastructure cost is not just the cost of building new infrastructure, it is the cost of the infrastructure over its entire lifetime. This is why we build things well the first time, and why concrete can compete with asphalt - the infrastructure cost of concrete roads is often less than asphalt over its lifetime. We are still paying for the Trolley wire infrastructure, and will continue too, until we have a Council with a courage to make a decision to remove the resource drain from that cost which could be better used elsewhere. To the extent you feel the reources are not better spent elsewhere - you are welcome to that opinion. Hopefully, Council will at least make a final decision, even if it is not the "courageous" one I would prefer.
    Last edited by moahunter; 07-06-2008 at 02:42 PM.

  70. #270

    Default

    Why don't you talk about false attribution first?
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  71. #271

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee View Post
    Why don't you talk about false attribution first?
    That it will cost $100 million plus to maintain the trolleys versus scrapping them? That's a fact per the latest research.

    Or that no-one wants to maintain them but you? That's an opinion, that may be hyperbole, but is hardly any more disingenuous than much of what you have written about the horror of diesel pollution.

  72. #272

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee View Post
    Why don't you talk about false attribution first?
    That it will cost $100 million plus to maintain the trolleys versus scrapping them? That's a fact per the latest research.

    Or that no-one wants to maintain them but you? That's an opinion, that may be hyperbole, but is hardly any more disingenuous than much of what you have written about the horror of diesel pollution.
    Moahunter - your bias in scrapping the trolley's is clouding your common sense. The report is also biased and the $100 million is on some very basic and bad assumptions and is not adequately measured against other costs related to diesel buses. Seriously, the report going to council is badly flawed.

    Further - it's not all about money!!!!!!!!! There are other atributes to keeping the trolley's that are being ignored, or brushed off with false assumptions.

  73. #273

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lightrail View Post
    Moahunter - your bias in scrapping the trolley's is clouding your common sense. .
    I'll have a rest on this lightrail. There are those who like trolleys, and those who don't. I don't think any amount of debate is going to change that, the poll thread probably makes the most sense - people can vote what they personally feel. In the same way, I think our Council just has to make up their minds based on their common sense, either way. But, not another study I hope, just a final decision one way or the other.

  74. #274
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    6 degrees north of you
    Posts
    784

    Default

    Trolley buses pay for themselves over the long period. That period used to be 25 years, but I'm guessing it would be a bit longer now.
    Diesel buses don't last nearly as long as trolley buses. Even our current trolleys are 25+ years old, and they run well. Diesels, like that 4089 pictured above, don't run nearly as well. That 4089 is only 10 years old.
    Diesel buses spend more time in the repair/maintenance shop too, which costs money, because you then need more mechanics and service persons.
    ETS could easily buy 50 new low-floor trolleys, for $50 million, and they will last longer and burn cleaner then any hybrid or diesel bus out there. Hybrids are $ million, and diesels are over $400K. And with oil prices hitting record highs, trolley's are a great choice for mainline routes.
    Remember, hybrids still need diesel.
    Yay, summertime!

  75. #275

    Default

    do we have a map of the trolley system as it is today?

    i think it would be helpful to the discussion. i wonder if the existing network is still optimal given the current set-up of the city, or whether the infrastructure should really be realigned (not free, incidentally)
    City Centre Airport is to the sky as False Creek is to the ocean.

  76. #276

    Default

    lux: I had one that was a poor quality scan of a faded old diagram, but then I lost even that during a catastrophic hard disk failure. I'm pretty sure someone around here has a better one.

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter
    That it will cost $100 million plus to maintain the trolleys versus scrapping them? That's a fact per the latest research.
    No, it's just that beside not reading what I write, you're also writing it for me. You're deliberately misleading anyone who reads. i.e., lying.

    I never said the following, and I never quoted it in any previous message:

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee View Post
    Checkel's research showed that purchasing and operating 47 trolley buses over their expected lifespan of 18 years will cost a staggering $183 million, compared to $57 million for the same number of hybrid buses or $50 million for diesel buses.
    Most of that cost differential is maintenace Jaybee relative to a bus. If you can subtract, you will figure out that "my" $100m infrastructure cost/liability was conservative

    You may care passionately about your bias, but the above false attribution does not belong on C2E.
    Last edited by JayBee; 07-06-2008 at 08:25 PM. Reason: tone
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  77. #277

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lux View Post
    do we have a map of the trolley system as it is today?

    i think it would be helpful to the discussion. i wonder if the existing network is still optimal given the current set-up of the city, or whether the infrastructure should really be realigned (not free, incidentally)
    Bus routes, or overhead diagrams?

    For bus routes, I could easily put one together using Google Maps.

    For overhead, I have the 1982 wire diagrams in a book, but can't find anything since.

  78. #278

    Default

    Moahunter - please fix your misquoted quote. It's seems you are trying to put words in someones fingers...

  79. #279

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee View Post
    No, it's just that beside not reading what I write, you're also writing it for me. You're deliberately misleading anyone who reads. i.e., lying.
    .
    I made a cut/paste mistake with the "quote" feature Jaybee, and misunderstood what you said above, my apologies, it was not intentional. I should have attributed the quote back to the newspaper, I think most people would realize it was not from you, but I have corrected above accordingly.
    Last edited by moahunter; 07-06-2008 at 09:42 PM.

  80. #280

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lux View Post
    do we have a map of the trolley system as it is today?

    i think it would be helpful to the discussion. i wonder if the existing network is still optimal given the current set-up of the city, or whether the infrastructure should really be realigned (not free, incidentally)
    There are three maps of the 124km trolley network that goes from 50th street to 156th street and Southgate to 118th avenue in the Edmonton Trolley Coalition whitepaper at http://www.trolleycoalition.org/pdf/whitepaper1.pdf on pages 4, 5 & 6

    The area covered is about 7 times that of our LRT system including the south leg to 23 ave. I was quite surprised to realize how extensive it is. Most of the times you really don't notice the overhead lines until you look for them.

    What strikes me is that there are people stating that streetcars don't mess up the streetscape the same way. I like street cars as well but the statement is false. You still have the same poles & overhead support wires except one electrical wire. On the ground you have the tracks which are a hazzard for pedestrians, cars and especially bikes. In San Francisco when the rails are wet and you try to stop with a car it can be a hair raising experience. In Portland they have had over 150 accidents by pedestrians and cyclists, one wheel in a groove and you are going over the handlebars. The steel on steel impact can reverberate in stores and buildings.

    As I said before, I like streetcars but lets keep our trolley network and get new vehicles,
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  81. #281
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    6 degrees north of you
    Posts
    784

    Default

    trolley lines not including downtown:
    1. Jasper Ave from 82 st to 124 st
    2. 84 st from Jasper Ave to 111 ave, then to 82 st, then east on 112 ave to 53 st, 118 ave, 50 st, and back west on 112 ave, with a short turn loop at approx 62 st.
    3. 124 st to 118 ave, west to 156 st, south to Jasper Place TC, with short turn loops at 108 ave and 112 ave, and at 142 st/118 ave.
    4. 114 ave from 124 st to 135 st then south to Westmount TC.
    5. 102 ave from 124 st to 142 st, then SPR to Jasper Place TC, with a short turn loop at 147 st.
    6. 97 st from Jasper Ave to 111 ave then to 95 st.
    7. 95 st from Jasper Ave to 118 ave then to Coliseum.
    8. 115 ave from 95 st to 82 st, with a one-way NB shortcut wire running east on 115 ave then north on 80 st to 118 ave.
    9. Bellamy Hill, 97 ave, HLB, 109 st to 57 ave, with a short turn loop at 109 st/83 ave.
    10. 65 ave from 109 st to 112 st.
    11. 76 ave from 109 st to 118 st then 73 ave, currently out of service because of SLRT construction at 114 st.
    12. 101 st from Jasper Ave to 118 ave, then over to 106 st.
    13. Kingsway Ave from 101 st to 106 st, then north to 118 ave, with SB trolleys looping out of Kingsway TC SB via 106 st, 111 ave, 108 st, Kingsway Ave.
    14. Bellamy Hill SB to 96 ave, then east to Rossdale Rd, back to Bellamy Hill NB.
    15. 118 ave from 101 st to 95 st ( other parts of 118 ave covered above )

    note: one-way loop EB at Jasper Ave/84 st, then north on 82 st to turn west on 111 ave.

    I think I have it all covered
    Yay, summertime!

  82. #282

    Default

    The trolley network should be treated as a rail network, similar to streetcars. As I said in another thread, the trolley buses are not considered vehicles under the Alberta Motor Vehicle Act - the trolley buses do not have license plates - instead they are considered a fixed conveyance - same as trains, LRT and escalators.

  83. #283

    Default Edmonton Transit - how the trolley system could look with some investment.

    Edmonton Transit - how the trolley system could look with some investment.



    Extensions
    - From Jasper Place to West Edmonton Mall
    - From 118 Avenue along 97 Street to Northgate
    - From 118 Avenue along 50 street to Clareview Station
    - extension downtown to Grant McEwan (loop)
    - extension on 80 street to connect 115 Avenue and 118 Avenue

    Reroutes to maximise use of trolley overhead (see map)

    Red - Route 1 West Edmonton Mall to Clareview (reroute of existing 1 and 2) - 11 buses required in the peak to provide 15 minute headway.

    Yellow Route 3 Coliseum Station to Jasper Place, with peak extension to West Edmonton Mall - 9 buses required in the peak for 15 minute headway

    Dark Red Route 5 Westmount to Coliseum - 8 buses to provide peak 15 minute service, additional 4 buses to provide Westmount to Downtown at 7/8 minute frequency (combining existing route 5 and 135 into one route)

    Blue Route 7 Jasper Place to Belgravia, - 6 buses required to provide peak 20 minute service (increased over current 30 minute frequency)

    Dark blue Route 8 Abbotsfield to Grant McEwan (downtown) - 16 buses to provide 7/8 minute peak service on entire route (this route would cut back to downtown and a new route established to Millwoods)

    Green Route 9 Northgate to Southgate - 8 buses required to provide 15 minute peak service, additional 3 buses required to provide downtown to NAIT short-turn

    Gray Route 134 Northgate to Downtown via 97street and 101 street, peak extension to Park Allen, midday turnaround at Rossdale Loop - 6 buses for 15 peak minute service

    Purple West Edmonton Mall to NAIT - new peak service every 20 minutes? - 6 buses to provide peak service

    Costs:
    In 2008 dollars
    Extensions = $15 million
    Buses = 74, plus spares = 82 trolley buses (22 articulated, 60 standard) = $82 million for rolling stock

  84. #284

    Default

    Beautiful Map Lightrail

    Much better than the ones I have done.

    You have a vision for a better Edmonton.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  85. #285
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,277

    Default

    My gut feeling is telling me something is wrong with counciller Krushell's information, something feels funny.

    I can't believe that one trolley bus costs $950,000 where as a similar hybrid or deisel is that much cheaper, my gut tells me that an electric motor is a similar price to a diesel.

    Cost of fuel, electricity may or may not be more expensive then deisel or gas

    Maintenance, yes you have to keep the lines fixed, they could start by regularly painting the poles rather then letting them rust away. I don't see counciller Kim saying to replace the LRT with deisel cars (like Ottawa)

    But she is so adamant with her objection something seems off

  86. #286

    Default

    I'm very ignorant on the whole issue and haven't read the many, many postings here however I did hear a couple commentaries on CBC radio today...

    One caller said trolley's are based on coal plants and so are dirty.

    Partly true - but

    - there are natural gas turbines running too (more at peak hours - maybe coinciding with heavier trolley demand)

    Diesel is also dirty (though new very expensive filters mandated for euro cars somewhat clean up their emissions) - with heavy particulate and corrosive emissions (speculation on asthma links, etc.). Bad enough to cause severe building and ancient ediface damage in ancient cities too. (Different types of diesel maybe.)

    Diesels are efficient when up to speed but I don't know how efficient they are on a stop and go basis - I can only think of the smoke that spews from buses leaving a stop. Do the emission's experts even measure these dirty moments? (low rpms, low torque - does hybrid allieviate this?)

    An "expert" on CBC (who wrote some book about transportation after oil) said economics of trolley systems look much better as diesel prices rise. The city's study was very outdated. To me this shows that there's no good way to find the right answer - the future will bring unexpected cost increases and decreases. So I still like the idea of not having all the City's transportation infrastructure in one or two baskets of eggs.

    Also, almost whatever negatives (and positives) applied to trolley systems seem to apply to LRT systems (which are even less flexible but possibly carry more passengers - though our LRT was a white elephant for it's first 20 or so years). Remember all those free ridership days/years.

    Finally, why isn't the city considering/proposing all electric and natural gas-electric hybrid buses? (proven, same torque as diesel but far cleaner,...)

  87. #287
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    6 degrees north of you
    Posts
    784

    Default

    Another option that no one seems to have considered is ETS using diesel/trolleys like Seattle does. Seattle uses them more for tunnels, running as trolleys in the tunnels, then as diesels at ground level. But Edmonton could use them as trolleys in the downtown area where car emissions are at their highest, then as diesels in outlying areas.
    Yay, summertime!

  88. #288
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    31

    Default

    I think that rather than having an aging fleet of 47 trolleys, we should have a brand new fleet of 147 trolleys. Some pin-headed councellors just don't understand that trolleys are a sustainable, long-term inexpensive transit solution. To say otherwise would be like outlawing automobiles in eastern european countries because they are unsafe and a pain to maintain. Well, if those cars were actually modern, maintained, and globally competitive.... Right now, trolleys are like having a 1910-era steam car, and saying that it dosen't compare to your BMW.

  89. #289

    Default My proposed Trolley Routes and Extensions

    So here they are.

    The wire diagram is adapted from Colin K Hatcher and Tom Schwarzkopf, "Edmonton's Electric Transit: The Story of Edmonton's Streetcars and Trolley Buses", Railfare Enterprises Ltd, 1983.

    On this diagram, I've added what I think I know of the system since 1982, but I could be wrong in some places. I've added in red the extensions that I propose to maximise the trolley operating system.

    The Wire Diagram 2008 with extension

  90. #290

    Default

    Route 1 - realigned existing Route 1 and 2 and includes Route 120


    Route 3 - extension to West Edmonton Mall in peak periods[/b]


    Route 5 - includes Route 135


    Route 7 - includes Route 133 north of the River


    Route 8 - splits the existing Route 8 and reroutes downtown


    Route 9


    Route 134 - extended to Rossdale and to Parkallen in peak taking over from the 133 south of the River


    Route X new route not going downtown - could take over from Route 8 once LRT reaches NAIT
    Last edited by lightrail; 16-06-2008 at 01:00 AM.

  91. #291

    Default Send the maps to the Mayor

    Lightrail, you are inspired! Your maps are more valuable and positive than anything the consultants presented at the TPW.

    I urge you to send them to all Councillors and the Mayor today.

    What worrys me is that Charlie Stolte has signed the presentation to TPW and Council to eliminate trolleys because they are expensive to maintain, uses 'dirty' coal power and the lines create fixed routes.

    He spoke at the transit vehicle stakeholder meeting that he is working on an idea to bring streetcars to Edmonton. If he is so adamant that trolleys are bad then why is he proposing replacing it with expensive to maintain, uses 'dirty' coal power and the lines create fixed routes???
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  92. #292
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Old Strathcona, Edmonton
    Posts
    1,907

    Default

    Just a quick note: the overhead lines for McKernan/Belgravia (76th Avenue west of 109th Street) were removed about a year ago. They no longer exist.
    Almost always open to debate...

  93. #293
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    6 degrees north of you
    Posts
    784

    Default

    and another quick note: The route #3 can't be extended to Northlands for events because the 115 ave level crossing was removed several years ago.
    Yay, summertime!

  94. #294

    Default

    Have you factored in one critical thing here? You propose growing the network of overhead lines into places that currently have no overhead poles/lines along the routes, such as 87ave to WEM and 50st to clareview.

    As a homeowner, I would be greatly against having overhead trolly lines put on major routes in my area of the city. I currently am located in an area that is fitted with them. I can't wait until they are gone, they are such an eyesore. I can't see ETS being able to put additional overhead line infrastructure down 87ave, when people are already so opposed to an LRT line down the same street...

    The efficency of an electric system is obvious, but not with the bygone era of overhead trolly lines. When electrical storage becomes mainstream, all modes of transportation will have to shift to the technology, including outdated overhead electric trolly systems, to battery storage applications.

  95. #295
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    6 degrees north of you
    Posts
    784

    Default

    I would rather have the 'eyesore' of trolley lines, then the noise and fumes from diesel buses. I have both running past my place, and I never hear or smell the trolleys.
    Yay, summertime!

  96. #296

    Default

    Current 630 poll disagrees with you by over a 2:1 margin. The trolly system has numbered days left.

  97. #297

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blainehamilton View Post
    Current 630 poll disagrees with you by over a 2:1 margin. The trolly system has numbered days left.
    Hopefully Council will make a more educated decision than people just hearing parroted information on the radio and the newspaper that purports that trolleys will cost $100M. If you look at the past polls and how the mass media can spin a story it is the same spin the G.W.Bush spun on WMD's, Saddam supporting terrorism and so on. Making the biggest lie creates the biggest headline and leaves the facts out of the equation.
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 16-06-2008 at 10:28 PM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  98. #298

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blainehamilton View Post
    Current 630 poll disagrees with you by over a 2:1 margin. The trolly system has numbered days left.
    Uh, did you know that people can and do vote multiple times on that site? And most Edmontonians don't even know about it?
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  99. #299
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,972

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Hopefully Council will make a more educated decision than people just hearing parroted information on the radio and the newspaper that purports that trolleys will cost $100M. If you look at the past polls and how the mass media can spin a story it is the same spin the G.W.Bush spun on WMD's, Saddam supporting terrorism and so on. Making the biggest lie creates the biggest headline and leaves the facts out of the equation.
    I'm having a hard time understanding why all of these people - City Councillors, consultants, City Admin, Transit officials - would be lying to us. Do they have a "hidden agenda"? Are they really out to screw us over, just for the fun of it? Are they really part of some pro-diesel consortium?

    Sorry, it's not making sense to me that all of them could be so wrong after so much time and study.

    Seriously - comparing City Council transit decisions to Geo W Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq says more about you than it does about City Council.
    aka Jim Good; "The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up." - Steven Wright

  100. #300

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimbo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Hopefully Council will make a more educated decision than people just hearing parroted information on the radio and the newspaper that purports that trolleys will cost $100M. If you look at the past polls and how the mass media can spin a story it is the same spin the G.W.Bush spun on WMD's, Saddam supporting terrorism and so on. Making the biggest lie creates the biggest headline and leaves the facts out of the equation.
    I'm having a hard time understanding why all of these people - City Councillors, consultants, City Admin, Transit officials - would be lying to us. Do they have a "hidden agenda"? Are they really out to screw us over, just for the fun of it? Are they really part of some pro-diesel consortium?

    Sorry, it's not making sense to me that all of them could be so wrong after so much time and study.
    Honestly I don't know why they're doing it either, but it is strange that we're the only city that has gotten a study pointing to the negative like this.

    A few possibilities:

    1. Groupthink.

    2. Too much power in the mechanic's union. (Or too many higher ups that started as diesel mechanics?) (Trolleys require fewer mechanics.)

    3. Oil money (in Alberta, you say?) (Hey, I haven't made a conclusion, but seriously, how couldn't it be possible?)

    4. People who seriously don't like the wires. (This is semi-legitimate, but I have to remind them that a.) we haven't bothered with the power and phone lines, and b.) Health has to be considered ahead of subjective aesthetic perspectives.)


    Especially when you consider that the same consultants that produced a negative study for Edmonton produced positive ones for both Wellington N.Z. and Los Angeles, you really do have to wonder about the legitimacy of any of them. Then throw in 7 other cities building or rebuilding trolley systems in North America alone (plus several others in Eurasia and Latin America) and yeah, I would really like to know why, as you say, "all of these people - City Councillors, consultants, City Admin, Transit officials - would be lying to us."

    I don't have an answer about if or why, but I do firmly believe that if health, and by extension livability, is taken into account at all, the decision should actually be quite simple.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

Page 3 of 14 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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