PDA

View Full Version : Why can't we see something like this in Edmonton



lightrail
10-12-2008, 11:11 PM
Just when you think Edmonton is getting on with LRT, Calgary has to go one better.

Just check out the 5min video simulation of Calgary's WLRT. Not only is the video fantastic, but the routes is incredible. Leaving downtown, it looks like Vancouver's Skytrain, riding high about the city on a guideway, and the line includes Calgary's and Alberta's first true elevated station (16 Street southwest) and Calgary's first underground station (Westbrook).

Would love to see this kind of planning and money being spent in Edmonton on LRT

Here's the link to the video webpage:

www.westlrt.ca

Click on the animation link at the bottom

etownboarder
10-12-2008, 11:19 PM
And they plan to have ALL that by 2012? The city of Edmonton can't even plan an LRT line in that amount of time, let alone build it.

Speedyturtle
10-12-2008, 11:27 PM
While they're building their lines, we're scrapping our plans to extend ours to the airport.

etownboarder
10-12-2008, 11:29 PM
This is so frustrating. Edmonton should be able to do more. Come up with a good plan and go after the funding. Stop pissing around.

Edmonton PRT
10-12-2008, 11:43 PM
Maybe we should hire Calgary to lobby for funds, design and build Edmonton's LRT.

etownboarder
10-12-2008, 11:47 PM
Want to know another reason you can tell Edmonton isn't serious about LRT? Take a look at the website for Edmonton's LRT expansions and compare it to what is available to the public for Calgary's WLRT. It's laughable.

nriviera
11-12-2008, 12:12 AM
That is a *really* slick video, good for Calgary.

The_Cat
11-12-2008, 12:17 AM
This is so frustrating. Edmonton should be able to do more. Come up with a good plan and go after the funding. Stop pissing around.

Agreed. I think that if Edmonton really wanted to get the LRT done, it would. But look at the resistance that Edmonton faces with its LRT. The NAIT LRT could start next spring, and it could probably have it complete by 2011 or 2012.

Edmonton has to be diligent in pursuing LRT. The overhead rail built west of downtown shows that we can build across the river. Take it south from Churchill/Central, and across the river valley through the Mill Creek Ravine. It could then have a stop around Whyte Avenue/Campus St. Jean, and continue east/SE to Mill Woods. This would have less environmental impact, and less property expropriation.

As for the International Airport LRT, perhaps inviting Edmonton Airports and the City of Leduc to participate might spur construction further south.

The_Cat
11-12-2008, 12:27 AM
I'd like to see the Churchill-NAIT line have a video like the Calgary LRT. It would really sell LRT in Edmonton.

grish
11-12-2008, 05:46 AM
Is there a reason why Edmonton LRT plan is to go on the ground and not on an elevated guideway in places such as Jasper Avenue and Stoney PLain Road Business area if it goes that way?

240GLT
11-12-2008, 08:56 AM
So they make a little video about the C-Train and everyone up here complains because we don't do the exact same thing at the exact same time, for LRT lines that aren't designed yet.

Sometimes I wonder why I bother reading this forum

grish
11-12-2008, 08:59 AM
well, my "complaint" is more a comment and a question why our current lines that are being built and being planned do not use elevated track.

Bill
11-12-2008, 08:59 AM
I find it laughable that Edmonton city council talks about having no money for LRT due to the economy, yet Calgary is steamrolling ahead with their LRT expansion.

Then there's our City Mayor Mandel who sees no value in investigating LRT to the airport.

On top of that, ridiculous timelines to get any LRT implemented in this city. At this rate it will be 50 years by the time an LRT is spurred in all major directions in Edmonton.

LRT is a competitive advantage to any city. A good LRT system will attract people and businesses to a city. Look at Calgary.

grish
11-12-2008, 09:02 AM
well, I don't think the LRT attracted people and businesses to calgary. I don't think you really want to have that claim attached to you.

240GLT
11-12-2008, 09:16 AM
I find it laughable that Edmonton city council talks about having no money for LRT due to the economy, yet Calgary is steamrolling ahead with their LRT expansion.

WHat I find laughable are the gross assumptions made by people that are totally contrary to reality.

Are they shutting down SRLT construction because they don't have any money ? Is the NAIT LRT line that is technically under construction right now being abandonned ? Is Epcor going to use the tunnel under the new tower for a storage locker ? Are they cancelling all the WRLT studies ?

Honestly, how do you come up with such ridiculous conclusions ?

IanO
11-12-2008, 09:21 AM
WLRT NEEDS TO GET PLANNED AND BUILT... simple as that. even with the NLRT we do not have a functional system as we have only 1/2 of the city covered at best.

RTA
11-12-2008, 10:12 AM
I love some some folks here think we should spend more money marketing LRT and building a fancy website with rendered animations, when we could just as easily keep spending it doing the studies and planning that we're doing now to expand the LRT.

Guys, Calgary didn't just spring this website and their WLRT plan overnight. It has been in the planning stages for many years already.

IanO
11-12-2008, 11:04 AM
^yes, but it is moving forward...

IanO
11-12-2008, 11:05 AM
^furthermore...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bt0qeIrdRpk

tkoe
11-12-2008, 11:09 AM
Just to add a bit more perspective; from what I understand the WLRT in Calgary is almost a half a year behind schedule and construction will not begin in earnest until next spring. You should also note from that video that none of the station have been designed yet, so trains appear to stop in the middle of nowhere.

Don't always assume that Calgary has its act together because often it really doesn't. And even more interesting, since I've moved here I've heard almost the exact same criticism of City Hall -- 'what about the potholes!' If Edmonton can get NLRT started once SLRT starts to wind up and a route for WLRT decided next year, I think we'll be doing fine.

kcantor
11-12-2008, 12:00 PM
Is there a reason why Edmonton LRT plan is to go on the ground and not on an elevated guideway in places such as Jasper Avenue and Stoney PLain Road Business area if it goes that way?
maybe so they don't look like this (this being greater vancouver's lrt as it moves through downtown richmond on number 3 road):
http://www.seataf.com/blogs/canadaline/2008-06-29/thumbs/KICX6873.jpg

http://www.seataf.com/blogs/canadaline/2008-11-23/thumbs/KICX7068.jpg

http://www.seataf.com/blogs/canadaline/2008-10-06/thumbs/KICX5016.jpg

i think their videos were slender and sexy and not very intrusive as well but the reality is that 20' above the sidewalk is a lot different than the 60-80' this video implies. you might want to go back and check out the column/pier spacing used for illustrative purposes and what might be needed in real life as well. although maybe i'm just naive...

grish
11-12-2008, 12:08 PM
/\ calgarians know what an elevated LRT track looks like. Their LRT uses one of those to cross the river from downtown to memorial drive NE--I would say a few hundred meters of such track. I think they wouldn't object to it unless the video purposely tried to make it clunky.

Edmonton PRT
11-12-2008, 12:21 PM
I find it laughable that Edmonton city council talks about having no money for LRT due to the economy, yet Calgary is steamrolling ahead with their LRT expansion.

WHat I find laughable are the gross assumptions made by people that are totally contrary to reality.

Are they shutting down SRLT construction because they don't have any money ? Is the NAIT LRT line that is technically under construction right now being abandonned ? Is Epcor going to use the tunnel under the new tower for a storage locker ? Are they cancelling all the WRLT studies ?

Honestly, how do you come up with such ridiculous conclusions ?

I agree with you 240GLT, If you read the Calgary LRT website it states that this is Calgary's first expansion since 1987. Not exactly steamrolling along for 20 years.

kcantor
11-12-2008, 01:03 PM
Is there a reason why Edmonton LRT plan is to go on the ground and not on an elevated guideway in places such as Jasper Avenue and Stoney PLain Road Business area if it goes that way?
maybe so they don't look like this (this being greater vancouver's lrt as it moves through downtown richmond on number 3 road):
http://www.seataf.com/blogs/canadaline/2008-06-29/thumbs/KICX6873.jpg

http://www.seataf.com/blogs/canadaline/2008-11-23/thumbs/KICX7068.jpg

http://www.seataf.com/blogs/canadaline/2008-10-06/thumbs/KICX5016.jpg

i think their videos were slender and sexy and not very intrusive as well but the reality is that 20' above the sidewalk is a lot different than the 60-80' this video implies. you might want to go back and check out the column/pier spacing used for illustrative purposes and what might be needed in real life as well. although maybe i'm just naive...


/\ calgarians know what an elevated LRT track looks like. Their LRT uses one of those to cross the river from downtown to memorial drive NE--I would say a few hundred meters of such track. I think they wouldn't object to it unless the video purposely tried to make it clunky.
i was just trying to answer your question regarding jasper and stony plain road by showing you what one of the reasons might be.

and that "few hundred meters of such track" in calgary is a bridge, not an elevated track. and i wouldn't want it fifteen feet from my window either. regardless of what you want to call it, it's not terribly slender and unimposing either:

http://content.calgary.ca/NR/rdonlyres/epraqumitkulscttxsx7y6xqqde2y75ziqopumqqd6pnh23p2d cp6f2m2l54ksmkziycgspjinrmjnnjv5xf37dn4kb/ctrain_bridge.jpg

240GLT
11-12-2008, 01:13 PM
I lived at the corner of the Lougheed hwy and North road in Coquitlam just as the Lougheed line was completed. That line runs right on top of the Lougheed hwy. It is massive and imposing... the only reason why it's not such a huge issue is that most of the buildings in the area are stepped quite far back from the highway. Such an option would never work for, say, SPR. It would be much too disruptive.

moahunter
11-12-2008, 01:33 PM
/\ calgarians know what an elevated LRT track looks like. Their LRT uses one of those to cross the river from downtown to memorial drive NE--I would say a few hundred meters of such track. I think they wouldn't object to it unless the video purposely tried to make it clunky.
You will note that the elevated section is only really through an industrial / commercial looking part of town where people aren't worried about aesthetics. It would be horrible in any residential neighborhood, LRT is too heavy, and the supporting structures will be ugly as sin.

If we must go elevated, then we would be better off looking at PRT which at least involves light vehciles and minimal support structure. I'm not keen on that until its proven in a city though.

danimalrex
11-12-2008, 01:45 PM
Calgary has extended its LRT routes by 8 stations since 1987, with another 3 stations coming online to extend the existing routes in the next couple of years (not to mention the new west leg mentioned here). With only a noticable lapse in building through the 90's, Calgary has been pretty consistent in expanding and growing its LRT system as the city grows.

The website linked in the original post notes that this new west leg was identified as a future requirement in 1983, and I suspect that overall, the routing of the track and location of the stations hasn't changed much in the 25 years that have passed (beyond lengthening the proposed route to accomidate the growth of the city).

Take a look at the supporting reference documents on the C-Train wiki entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-Train). It appears, at least from the outside, that they have a pretty clear idea of what they want from their LRT system down there, and what they are going to be doing with it over the next 20 years or so.

Edmonton is pretty far behind with regards to LRT. Granted, we're pushing ahead at a pretty good pace, but I feel that it's going to be at least another decade or so before Edmonton even begins to approach where Calgary currently is with theirs.

240GLT
11-12-2008, 02:02 PM
^ It's no secret that Edmonton should have kept up the LRT expansion, rather than letting it languish for years at a time between extensions. In a growing city like Edmonton, you'd expect pretty much constant LRT construction.

We're playing catch up, but looking down the road at Calgary and lamenting how far behind we are is pointless. The fact is that now we're moving in the right direction. Now it's up to citizens to make sure they let the city know they want this to continue.

Plus lucky for us we don't have an at grade downtown line to contend with!

Speedyturtle
11-12-2008, 03:19 PM
Underground line downtown = We win!

Edmonton PRT
11-12-2008, 05:25 PM
/\ calgarians know what an elevated LRT track looks like. Their LRT uses one of those to cross the river from downtown to memorial drive NE--I would say a few hundred meters of such track. I think they wouldn't object to it unless the video purposely tried to make it clunky.
You will note that the elevated section is only really through an industrial / commercial looking part of town where people aren't worried about aesthetics. It would be horrible in any residential neighborhood, LRT is too heavy, and the supporting structures will be ugly as sin.

If we must go elevated, then we would be better off looking at PRT which at least involves light vehciles and minimal support structure. I'm not keen on that until its proven in a city though.

I agree with you Moahunter. Calgary is very different in the geography, geology and road design. We usually build on clay compared to Calgary"s gravel and bedrock which reduces the support structures and foundations. Edmonton's neighbourhoods are more continuous whereas Calgary has lots of dry hills and valleys where there are breaks in between neighbourhoods that create transportation corridors. They also have more railway ROW's in Calgary. There is a big difference between running a LRT line overhead or along a freeway in Calgary than running (or ruining) Mill Creek Ravine or McKinnion Ravine with LRT.

Here is a picture of what our elevated LRT line looks like in Edmonton. See how massive or pylons and track are compared to Calgary's.

http://www.edmontonprt.com/LRT%20overpass%20small.jpg

Edmonton PRT
11-12-2008, 05:26 PM
Underground line downtown = We win!


No problem at $300M per kilometer

240GLT
11-12-2008, 09:20 PM
Here is a picture of what our elevated LRT line looks like in Edmonton. See how massive or pylons and track are compared to Calgary's.

Our actual bridge, compared to Calgary's video imaged one ?

Any discussions like this are pure conjecture at this point.

I wonder how they're planning on paying for this.

highlander
11-12-2008, 09:21 PM
Underground line downtown = We win!


No problem at $300M per kilometer

I think Speedy means we already have our underground so we won't have to dig in the future. If it weren't for the phenominal cost of digging out northbound I woul agree with him.

highlander
11-12-2008, 09:26 PM
Here is a picture of what our elevated LRT line looks like in Edmonton. See how massive or pylons and track are compared to Calgary's.

Our actual bridge, compared to Calgary's video imaged one ?

Any discussions like this are pure conjecture at this point.

I wonder how they're planning on paying for this.

Our bridge looks massive compared to calgary's existing bridge. I suspect that a large part of that is the longer span of our bridge, but I do thing that we have a habit of over engineering things. As for the cost of elevated, it was pointed out in one of the SLRT threads that the LRT bridge over the whitemud actually cost less per meter than the SLRT average.

lightrail
12-12-2008, 12:49 AM
Is there a reason why Edmonton LRT plan is to go on the ground and not on an elevated guideway in places such as Jasper Avenue and Stoney PLain Road Business area if it goes that way?
maybe so they don't look like this (this being greater vancouver's lrt as it moves through downtown richmond on number 3 road):
http://www.seataf.com/blogs/canadaline/2008-06-29/thumbs/KICX6873.jpg

http://www.seataf.com/blogs/canadaline/2008-11-23/thumbs/KICX7068.jpg

http://www.seataf.com/blogs/canadaline/2008-10-06/thumbs/KICX5016.jpg

i think their videos were slender and sexy and not very intrusive as well but the reality is that 20' above the sidewalk is a lot different than the 60-80' this video implies. you might want to go back and check out the column/pier spacing used for illustrative purposes and what might be needed in real life as well. although maybe i'm just naive...

To be fair, the Vancouver Canada Line is actually heavy rail technology - it's not a light rail system. The cars are wider than LRT cars. Skytrain is a better example and that guideway is more slender.

raz0469
12-12-2008, 12:51 PM
Here is a picture of what our elevated LRT line looks like in Edmonton. See how massive or pylons and track are compared to Calgary's.

Our actual bridge, compared to Calgary's video imaged one ?

Any discussions like this are pure conjecture at this point.

I wonder how they're planning on paying for this.

Our bridge looks massive compared to calgary's existing bridge. I suspect that a large part of that is the longer span of our bridge, but I do thing that we have a habit of over engineering things. As for the cost of elevated, it was pointed out in one of the SLRT threads that the LRT bridge over the whitemud actually cost less per meter than the SLRT average.

First of all, on what are you basing your opinion that we "have a bhabit of over engineering things"?

Second, the LRT bridge over the river looks big and bulky because of it's particular design. I don't know the name offhand, but it's something like "box construction." It's largely hollow. Why that design was chosen over others that wouldn't be as large, I have no idea, as I'm not a civil engineer. The actual columns that support it are comparitively quite small overall, about 8' in diameter.

kcantor
12-12-2008, 12:55 PM
Is there a reason why Edmonton LRT plan is to go on the ground and not on an elevated guideway in places such as Jasper Avenue and Stoney PLain Road Business area if it goes that way?
maybe so they don't look like this (this being greater vancouver's lrt as it moves through downtown richmond on number 3 road):
http://www.seataf.com/blogs/canadaline/2008-06-29/thumbs/KICX6873.jpg

http://www.seataf.com/blogs/canadaline/2008-11-23/thumbs/KICX7068.jpg

http://www.seataf.com/blogs/canadaline/2008-10-06/thumbs/KICX5016.jpg

i think their videos were slender and sexy and not very intrusive as well but the reality is that 20' above the sidewalk is a lot different than the 60-80' this video implies. you might want to go back and check out the column/pier spacing used for illustrative purposes and what might be needed in real life as well. although maybe i'm just naive...

To be fair, the Vancouver Canada Line is actually heavy rail technology - it's not a light rail system. The cars are wider than LRT cars. Skytrain is a better example and that guideway is more slender.
i think your "eye" might be better than mine if it manages to discern how much "more slender" skytrain is:

vancouver skytrain at commercial:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/47/109976611_4b251755be.jpg?v=0

skytrain in new westminster:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/45/107287933_9429d522e2.jpg?v=0

vancouver skytrain near pacific central:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/38/84112166_27d4031c89.jpg?v=0

http://l.yimg.com/g/images/spaceball.gif
don't get me wrong - i am a transit supporter but pretending that any of the components of a functional system - whether that be buses or trolleys or lrt or skytrain or prt or private vehicles - are something other than what they really are is no way to advance them.

240GLT
12-12-2008, 02:59 PM
Here is a picture of what our elevated LRT line looks like in Edmonton. See how massive or pylons and track are compared to Calgary's.

Our actual bridge, compared to Calgary's video imaged one ?

Any discussions like this are pure conjecture at this point.

I wonder how they're planning on paying for this.

Our bridge looks massive compared to calgary's existing bridge. I suspect that a large part of that is the longer span of our bridge, but I do thing that we have a habit of over engineering things. As for the cost of elevated, it was pointed out in one of the SLRT threads that the LRT bridge over the whitemud actually cost less per meter than the SLRT average.

First of all, on what are you basing your opinion that we "have a bhabit of over engineering things"?

Second, the LRT bridge over the river looks big and bulky because of it's particular design. I don't know the name offhand, but it's something like "box construction." It's largely hollow. Why that design was chosen over others that wouldn't be as large, I have no idea, as I'm not a civil engineer. The actual columns that support it are comparitively quite small overall, about 8' in diameter.

I believe it's post tension like the Skytrain spans. The interior is hollow, and all the services are run through there and they are easily accessible.

Calgary's above grade track will be built in much the same manner from the looks of it... their above grade portion is running between a railway track and a bunch of commercial & light industrial land, then up along Bow trail that's already sound buffered. Don't fool yourselves. It'll end up looking very much like the pictures posted above once it becomes reality.

Edmonton PRT
12-12-2008, 04:01 PM
Skytrain Construction
http://www.activeinfo.ca/images/segmentalbridgeunderconstruction5.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1283/776800103_f16297add7.jpg?v=0


precast section
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/86/279468048_2522694f41.jpg

http://www.gti-usa.net/images2/sky-train-l-img.gif

Medwards
12-12-2008, 04:41 PM
holy - that skytrain construction looks exactly like the LRT bridge over the N. Sask River.

wait a minute...

moahunter
12-12-2008, 06:20 PM
Not that I'm a PRT advocate - but it would be a lot less intrusive per the Heathrow example under construction, all of those new elevated LRT and Skytrain projects are horrifying in comparison:

http://www.ultraprt.com/stills/sIMG_0401.jpg http://www.ultraprt.com/stills/sIMG_0392.jpg http://www.ultraprt.com/stills/sIMG_0399.jpg http://www.ultraprt.com/stills/sIMG_0381.jpg

lightrail
12-12-2008, 07:26 PM
holy - that skytrain construction looks exactly like the LRT bridge over the N. Sask River.

wait a minute...

That's actually a cable stayed bridge over the North Arm of the Fraser.

The Canada Line segments are similar to Skytrain, but they are wider to accommodate the 3m wide trains, compared to 2.4 metre wide trains on Skytrain.

The segments are 20 metres between support columns usually

Edmonton PRT
12-12-2008, 09:00 PM
Not that I'm a PRT advocate - but it would be a lot less intrusive per the Heathrow example under construction, all of those new elevated LRT and Skytrain projects are horrifying in comparison:

http://www.ultraprt.com/stills/sIMG_0401.jpg http://www.ultraprt.com/stills/sIMG_0392.jpg http://www.ultraprt.com/stills/sIMG_0399.jpg http://www.ultraprt.com/stills/sIMG_0381.jpg

To be fair the PRT track shown is not completed. This is what the track looks like now that it is used in trials. Prof. Martin Lowson of ULTra is disappointed that they left the construction fencing as a cost saving measure rather than installing the more elegant wire cable fencing in the original design.

What is interesting is the scale of the posts and track as seen in the picture above with the guy on the ladder inspectng a short pylon. The posts are only 50cm (20 inch) in diameter This is an elevated bi-directional track for two lanes of PRT vehicles. In most urban areas the track is one way so the track would only be half the width shown.

http://www.atsltd.co.uk/uploads/images/Albums/Heathrow/Vehicle-going-over-road-Motorway-background.jpg

http://www.atsltd.co.uk/uploads/images/Albums/Heathrow/Distant_Guideway_and_Station.jpg

ULTra Guideway Dimensions: Single track



Overall Steel/Concrete Elevated Guideway Width (2.1m.)
Overall Concrete At-Grade Guideway Width (1.75m.)
Internal Guideway Width (1.6m.)
Internal Guideway Height (0.25m.)
Typical Elevated Guideway Headroom for main road crossings (5.7m.)
Typical Elevated Guideway Headroom for pedestrian crossings (2.5m.)

highlander
12-12-2008, 11:46 PM
Our bridge looks massive compared to calgary's existing bridge. I suspect that a large part of that is the longer span of our bridge, but I do thing that we have a habit of over engineering things. As for the cost of elevated, it was pointed out in one of the SLRT threads that the LRT bridge over the whitemud actually cost less per meter than the SLRT average.

First of all, on what are you basing your opinion that we "have a habit of over engineering things"?

Second, the LRT bridge over the river looks big and bulky because of it's particular design. I don't know the name offhand, but it's something like "box construction." It's largely hollow. Why that design was chosen over others that wouldn't be as large, I have no idea, as I'm not a civil engineer. The actual columns that support it are comparitively quite small overall, about 8' in diameter.

The Menzies Bridge is also large because it has a significant span, and any elevated LRT would not need to be so substantial. It could also be narrower than it is, as there is a lot of space on there besides the two tracks. I would think that if the downtown bored tunnels are large enough for safe maintenance then a bridge only needs to be a couple feet wider than the trains. according to the NFPA code for trainways it's OK to evacuate passengers along a track.

The high level bridge is about the same width and it carried 3 tracks safely.

RTA
12-12-2008, 11:54 PM
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1283/776800103_f16297add7.jpg?v=0


That is one of the coolest pieces of machinery ever.

Edmonton PRT
13-12-2008, 09:15 AM
holy - that skytrain construction looks exactly like the LRT bridge over the N. Sask River.

wait a minute...

Yes Medwards and your point is?:smt017

As I stated before, Calgary's elevated LRT design can be built at far less cost than Edmonton's or Vancouver's Skytrain.

Calgary is very different in the geography, geology and road design. We usually build on clay compared to Calgary's gravel and bedrock which reduces the support structures and foundations.


Calgary is mostly gravel and bedrock = small foundations
Edmonton is mostly clay, sand lens and weak shale = big foundations
Vancouver's Skytrain is built on bedrock and lots of silt from the Fraser River Delta. They also have to deal with earthquakes = big foundations
I was watching TV yesterday about maglev trains and the one they are building in China runs along river delta silt and requires a huge number of piles. Many are 30 meters deep and some as deep as 70 meters, thats 230 feet or 23 storeys. They have to install 25,000 piles but they are lucky to have cheap labour that only costs them a few dollars a day.

lightrail
13-12-2008, 12:35 PM
holy - that skytrain construction looks exactly like the LRT bridge over the N. Sask River.

wait a minute...

Yes Medwards and your point is?:smt017

As I stated before, Calgary's elevated LRT design can be built at far less cost than Edmonton's or Vancouver's Skytrain.

Calgary is very different in the geography, geology and road design. We usually build on clay compared to Calgary's gravel and bedrock which reduces the support structures and foundations.


Calgary is mostly gravel and bedrock = small foundations
Edmonton is mostly clay, sand lens and weak shale = big foundations
Vancouver's Skytrain is built on bedrock and lots of silt from the Fraser River Delta. They also have to deal with earthquakes = big foundations
I was watching TV yesterday about maglev trains and the one they are building in China runs along river delta silt and requires a huge number of piles. Many are 30 meters deep and some as deep as 70 meters, thats 230 feet or 23 storeys. They have to install 25,000 piles but they are lucky to have cheap labour that only costs them a few dollars a day.

I saw that maglev show too - very cool. They used video footage from Trainz Simulator 2006 - I know because I have that program and have run the maglev in it.

So on to Edmonton, Calgary - Chronology:

1977, Edmonton - Belevedere to Central - 6.9km (5 stations)
1981, Edmonton - Belevedere to Clareview 2.2km, total 9.1km (1 station, total 6 stations)
1981, Calgary - Anderson to 10 St W - 12.9km (12 stations)
1983, Edmonton - Central to Corona - 0.8 km, total 9.9km (2 staitons, total 8 stations)
1985, Calgary - City Hall to Whirtehorn - 9.8km, total 22.7km (7 stations, total 19 stations)
1985, Vancouver - Waterfront to New Westminster (15 stations)
1987, Calgary - 8 St W to University - 5.6km, total 28.3km (5 stations, total 24 stations)
1989, Edmonton - Corona to Grandin - 0.8km, total 10.7km (1 station, total 9 stations)
1989, Vancouver - New Westminster to Scott Road (2 stations, total 17 stations)
1990, Calgary - University to Brentwood - 1.0 km, total 29.3km (1 station, total 25 stations)
1992, Edmonton - Grandin to University - 1.6km, total 12.3km (1 station, total 10 stations)
1994, Vancouver - Scott Road to King George (3 stations, total 20 stations)
2001, Calgary - Anderson to Fish Creek/Lacombe - 3.4km, total 32.7km (2 stations, total 27 stations)
2002, Vancouver - Columbia to Braid (2 stations, total 22 stations)
2002, Vancouver - Braid to Commercial/Broadway (10 stations, total 32 stations)
2003, Calgary - Brentwood to Dalhousie - 3.0km, total 35.7km (1 station, total 28 stations)
2004, Calgary - Fish Creek/Lacombe to Somerset/Bridlewood - 3.0km, total 38.7km (2 stations, total 30 stations)
2006, Edmonton - University to Health Sciences - 0.6km, total 12.9km (1 station, total 11 stations)
2006, Vancouver - Commercial/Broadway to VVC/Clark (1 station, total 33 stations)
2007, Calgary - Whitehorn to Mcknight/Westwinds - 2.8km, total 41.5km (1 station, total 31 stations)

IanO
13-12-2008, 01:55 PM
^ouch

Sonic Death Monkey
13-12-2008, 04:45 PM
I wouldn't mind seeing cost comparisons added to that chronology.

Also keep in mind the following events that spurred LRT construction and funding by all 3 levels of government:
1977, Edmonton - Commonwealth Games
1986, Vancouver - Expo 86
1988, Calgary - Winter Olympics
2010, Vancouver - Winter Olympics

lightrail
13-12-2008, 11:11 PM
Future Plans:

Edmonton Under Construction - Health Sciences to Century Park, 7.5 km (total system length of 20.4 km) and 4 new stations (total of 15 stations) - expected to be open by 2011

Edmonton Planned - Churchill to NAIT, 3km (total system length of 23.4km) and 3 new stations (total of 18 stations) - start date not known, completion date not known

Edmonton Proposed
1 - Clareview to 153 avenue, approx. 2.2km (total system length of 25.6km) and 1 new station (total of 19 stations)
2 - downtown to Millwoods - route undefined, date undefined
3 - Century Park to Rutherford, approx 3km (total system length of 28.6km) and 3 new stations (total of 22 stations)
4 - downtown to West Edmonton - route undefined, date undefined
5 - NAIT to northwest Edmonton - route undefined, date undefined

Calgary - Under Construction
1 - Dalhousie to Crowfoot, approx 3km (total system length 44.5km) and 1 new station (total of 32 stations, opening 2008
2 - Crowfoot to Tuscany- Rocky Ridge, approx 3km (total system length of 47.5km) and 1 new station (total of 33 stations, opening 2011
3 - McKnight/Westwinds to Saddle Ridge, approx 5km (total system length of 52km) and 2 new stations (total of 35 stations) opening in 2011
4 - 11 street west to 69 street west, 7.5km (total system length of 59.5km) and 6 new stations (total of 41 stations)

Calgary Proposed
1. downtown to south east, approx 19km, unfunded, undefined route and stations

Vancouver Under Construction:
1. Canada Line - Waterfront to Richmond and the Airport, automated metro using third rail heavy rail type cars, approx. 19km (total system length 67km), 16 stations (total of 49 stations), opening in 2009.

Vancouver Planned
1. Evergreen Line (Millennium Line extension) - Lougheed to Douglas College, SkyTrain technology, approx. 11 km (total system length 78km) and 10 stations (total of 59 stations, planned to open 2014

Vancouver Proposed
1. Millennium Line Extension, VCC/Clark to UBC (Broadway subway) technology not decided but expected to be SkyTrain, approx 12 km (total system length of 90km) and 9 stations (total of 68 stations), planned to open before 2020
2. Expo Line Extension, King George to Langley, Technology not decided, but expected to be SkyTrain, 6km, number of stations unknown, probably 3-4 (total system length 96km with 72 stations) - planned to open before 2020
3 Capacity increase - Expo Line - platform extensions to accommodate longer trains and additional trains to run at the maximum practical headway of 72 seconds

Frequencies - Peak
Edmonton - 6min
Calgary - 2-4 min (South line)
Vancouver - 100 seconds (Waterfront to Columbia)

Frequencies -daytime
Edmonton - 10 min
Calgary - 10min
Vancouver 3-6 min (3min Waterfront to Columbia, 6 minutes on other lines)

Frequencies - evening
Edmonton - 15 min
Calgary 10-15 min
Vancouver 4-8min (4min Waterfront to Columbia, 8 min on other lines)

Underground Stations - current:
Edmonton = 6 (deepest at University around 26 metres)
Calgary = 0
Vancouver = 4 (deepest at Granville around 26 metres)

Rolling Stock
Edmonton - 37 Siemens U2 LRVs with 37 Siemens SD160 LRVs on order or being delivered for a total of 74 LRVs
Calgary - 84 Siemens U2 LRVs (2 are AC powered) and 32 Siemens SD160, for a total of 116 LRVs
Vancouver - 150 Mark 1 Skytrain cars and 60 Mark 2 SkyTrain cars, being delivered or on order are 20 articulated ROTEM trains for the Canada Line (40 cars) and 48 Mark 2 SkyTrain cars, for a total of 298 automated cars

Consists:
Edmonton - currently 3 and 4 car operations, with plans to go to 4 car operations when all LRVs delivered
Calgary - cureently 3-car operations (limited by platform length
Vancouver - SkyTrain Mark 1 in 4 or 6 car formations, SkyTrain Mark 2 in 2 or 4 car formations, plans to go to all Mark 1 in 6 car formation and all Mark 2 in 4 car formation with delivery of new Mark 2 cars. Canada Line 2 car formations.

Estimated Ridership - current (when under construction opened)
Edmonton - 42,000 (80,000)
Calgary - 280,000
Vancouver - 276,000 (380,000) - note: projections estimate 600,000 unlinked trips by 2020

moahunter
13-12-2008, 11:29 PM
Calgary - Under Construction
1 - Dalhousie to Crowfoot, approx 3km (total system length 44.5km) and 1 new station (total of 32 stations, opening 2008
2 - Crowfoot to Tuscany- Rocky Ridge, approx 3km (total system length of 47.5km) and 1 new station (total of 33 stations, opening 2011
3 - McKnight/Westwinds to Saddle Ridge, approx 5km (total system length of 52km) and 2 new stations (total of 35 stations) opening in 2011
4 - 11 street west to 69 street west, 7.5km (total system length of 59.5km) and 6 new stations (total of 41 stations)

Does this mean that Calgary is currently building 4 lines, while we are told only one is possible at at time (or are the first 2 the same line?) It would be nice if we could get past the current view that only one line is possible at a time... IMO NAIT should already be under construction beyond just the tunnel (why isn't it?).

lightrail
14-12-2008, 12:54 AM
Calgary - Under Construction
1 - Dalhousie to Crowfoot, approx 3km (total system length 44.5km) and 1 new station (total of 32 stations, opening 2008
2 - Crowfoot to Tuscany- Rocky Ridge, approx 3km (total system length of 47.5km) and 1 new station (total of 33 stations, opening 2011
3 - McKnight/Westwinds to Saddle Ridge, approx 5km (total system length of 52km) and 2 new stations (total of 35 stations) opening in 2011
4 - 11 street west to 69 street west, 7.5km (total system length of 59.5km) and 6 new stations (total of 41 stations)

Does this mean that Calgary is currently building 4 lines, while we are told only one is possible at at time (or are the first 2 the same line?) It would be nice if we could get past the current view that only one line is possible at a time... IMO NAIT should already be under construction beyond just the tunnel (why isn't it?).

Three lines - Crowfoot is an extension to an extension - still, it counts

MylesC
14-12-2008, 09:21 PM
I'm guessing that the West C-Train project will hit a few more snafus than they're expecting. Denver has put through some pretty grandiose LRT plans over the years but none of them have materialized within the timeframes that were proposed.

For instance, punching the West line into the downtown loop of Calgary will be veeery interesting. That area is already extremely congested with traffic from two lines.

However, I do agree that Edmonton (regardless of Cowtown's activities) needs to agressively push forward our own LRT development AND push for the World's Fair. There's a funding source that would give us the jump ahead.

Edmonton PRT
14-12-2008, 10:48 PM
Thanks Lightrail for all the stats. It is great to have factual information out in front of us all to study.:grin:

RTA
15-12-2008, 09:33 AM
For instance, punching the West line into the downtown loop of Calgary will be veeery interesting. That area is already extremely congested with traffic from two lines.

I would imagine that the west extension would be a continuation of the existing NE line to McKnight-Westwinds, heading west from the existing terminus at 10 St. NW station (which is to be pushed out to 11 St.). There is no downtown "loop" anymore after this extension, if one could have called it that to begin with.

Therefore, it would not really be adding anything to downtown that isn't already there.

lightrail
15-12-2008, 10:34 PM
For instance, punching the West line into the downtown loop of Calgary will be veeery interesting. That area is already extremely congested with traffic from two lines.

I would imagine that the west extension would be a continuation of the existing NE line to McKnight-Westwinds, heading west from the existing terminus at 10 St. NW station (which is to be pushed out to 11 St.). There is no downtown "loop" anymore after this extension, if one could have called it that to begin with.

Therefore, it would not really be adding anything to downtown that isn't already there.

That is the plan. If Calgary ever builds the 8th Avenue tunnels, the west to north-east line would be the only trains still using 7th avenue mall in regular service, the south-northwest line and the new south-east line would use the new tunnel.

The_Cat
15-12-2008, 11:19 PM
I'm hoping (for Calgary's benefit) that they can fix the problem with the 7 Avenue South LRT. A westbound line will mean more congestion downtown.

RTA
16-12-2008, 09:20 AM
^ See this (http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum/showpost.php?p=153007&postcount=56), the post just above yours.

lightrail
16-12-2008, 04:07 PM
I'm hoping (for Calgary's benefit) that they can fix the problem with the 7 Avenue South LRT. A westbound line will mean more congestion downtown.

It won't add anymore trains to 7th avenue. The trains from the Northeast that terminate at 11 street west will just continue on the west LRT line.

Medwards
30-11-2012, 01:25 PM
jGhOd6SMp4M

McBoo
30-11-2012, 02:28 PM
*sob* *sigh* Thinks SE/WLRT, *grrrrr*

Pretty extensive tunneling and very/very few level crossings.

Well done Cowgary. Only question, seeing as this feeds into the 7th ave mall - is will this impact frequencies / capacity on NE/NW/South lines?

I know it is just an extension of the NE line - but still adds more trains - more draw on electricity.

Medwards
30-11-2012, 02:46 PM
It will draw more electricity, but won't impact frequency, as this is just a continuation of the NE Line. The amount of trains per hour in the 7th avenue mall remains the same.

kkozoriz
30-11-2012, 03:12 PM
Exactly the same way that the 87th ave line would have coninued with no further impact on the tunnel downtown. We spent all that money just so we could end the line as soon as it came out of the tunnel. Such a waste.

ike9126
30-11-2012, 08:53 PM
At 1.18, why do they have the double track... similar to what is on Edmonton's LRT bridge. Always wondered that

booster
05-12-2012, 11:21 AM
$2.1 B for 12.5 km and 2.5 km underground. Nice for my hometown.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/ottawa/Rideau+Transit+Group+wins+Ottawa+contract/7654639/story.html

Thought I would add this on this thread since it is an open title.

Edmonton PRT
05-12-2012, 12:05 PM
Another gold plated transit line built on tax payers money

I love the participants
SNC-Lavalin has overseen new rail lines in Vancouver that transit authorities there are very happy with, but itís also been implicated in a kickback scheme in Libya ó Swiss authorities are investigating payments made in connection with a prison-construction contract there ó and a bridge-building scheme in Bangladesh so dirty that the World Bank withdrew financing.

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Rideau+Transit+Group+wins+Confederation+Line+contr act/7654639/story.html#ixzz2ECpIaxH6

highlander
05-12-2012, 12:25 PM
At 1.18, why do they have the double track... similar to what is on Edmonton's LRT bridge. Always wondered that

The double track is, i've heard, essentially a safety feature. if the train were to derail, the second rail would keep it close enough to the centre of the guideway so that there wouldn't be a risk of plunging off.

They have them for the high-level streetcar.