PDA

View Full Version : LRT Network Plan



Pages : [1] 2

Solaris
14-04-2009, 08:21 AM
I just noticed this on the CoE website:

http://www.edmonton.ca/transportation/UpcomingLRTPublicHearingDatesJune2009.pdf

grish
14-04-2009, 08:56 AM
it's like pulling teeth with these guys. The have "JUST" realized that they need to think of LRT as a whole system? And the have "JUST" discovered that they need to consider how the west-east line is going to work together? At least they have realized all that. I take it as a positive, although all of these meetings should have been done years ago when they first started talking about west and millwoods LRT.

moahunter
14-04-2009, 09:36 AM
^I agree it should have happened sooner. Notice the reference to considering "low-floor technology versus high floor" as well? I am excited by the possibilities of that. I don't like the comments about more public involvement though - that will just delay things further.

grish
14-04-2009, 09:48 AM
^I agree it should have happened sooner. Notice the reference to considering "low-floor technology versus high floor" as well? I am excited by the possibilities of that. I don't like the comments about more public involvement though - that will just delay things further.

yes, i noticed that. it now seems as if they have a new "favorite" that they are going to steadily push rather than consult. i don't mind low floor option, but I just wish options were put on the table in a straight forward and timely way for an actual consultation. The whole thing read as:


we want to build wLRT and seLRT as a "single" line with possibly another downtown tunnel or at least a tunnel to just get into downtown. we will use low floor technology. we are going to present it on June 2nd for a community "consultation". By "consultation" we really mean "approval".

they never learn... oh well.

moahunter
14-04-2009, 09:52 AM
If it is a good route up 102 with low floor technology, and they push it and it happens, maybe we will both win? It is a shame they didn't think of this sooner though, for example, before putting the money in to build the LRT tunnel under EPCOR - as maybe low floor would have worked well for NAIT too, and could be part of a combined West, NAIT and Millwoods system?

Medwards
14-04-2009, 09:52 AM
its funny that the city transportation dept seems to mirror things we talk about here @ c2e a few months before they do.

grish
14-04-2009, 10:34 AM
If it is a good route up 102 with low floor technology, and they push it and it happens, maybe we will both win? It is a shame they didn't think of this sooner though, for example, before putting the money in to build the LRT tunnel under EPCOR - as maybe low floor would have worked well for NAIT too, and could be part of a combined West, NAIT and Millwoods system?
i don't mind all sides winning. I just cannot help getting a bit frustrated with them.

and, yes, they should pay more attention to C2E. it seems like the people here are the ones with all the ideas.

Cleisthenis
14-04-2009, 11:57 AM
This (http://www2.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/letters/story.html?id=ca63e709-dd07-4f67-a46f-6f9430d93e97&p=2) is what needed (http://www.seemagazine.com/author/jordan-schroder/) to happen (http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Sports/stop+with+just+four+routes/1476226/story.html) last year. Better late than never though I guess. Nice find!

highlander
14-04-2009, 12:43 PM
While they only mention the W and SE lines, meaningful network planning needs to look even further than that. I'd like see more like 8 legs from downtown, plus a couple crosstown BRT routes and some tram for close-in, dense areas.

Cleisthenis
14-04-2009, 01:14 PM
The key thing highlander is that any length of track, generally speaking cannot support more than 3 lines. I really hope the civic leaders don't get pigeonholed into one or two proposals for how all the lines integrate and transfer. There are almost an unlimited number of ways for them to connect to one another... and a lot of them are probably less efficient/more expensive than others.

Medwards
29-04-2009, 04:16 PM
http://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/news/2009/13687.aspx



Public Information Sessions - LRT Network Plan

http://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/documents/LRT180X120.jpg
April 29, 2009
The City is undertaking a strategic, network-wide review of Edmonton’s LRT expansion plans. This will further define the LRT network, its design and operation by looking at how the whole system fits together including:


The type of LRT system that best meets Edmonton's long-term objectives.
The number of LRT lines, how they connect and their logical destinations.
A review of system design and technology.


Public Information Sessions

The City invites people to attend one of two May 13 open information sessions where aspects of the new LRT Network Plan will be shared with members of the public. These sessions will be an opportunity to find out more about the LRT Network Plan in advance of the June 2, 2009 Non-Statutory Public Hearing.
Date:

Wednesday May 13, 2009
Location:

The West Lounge
Robbins Health Learning Centre
Grant MacEwan College
10910 104 Avenue

Session One:

3-5pm
Session Two:

7-9pm
Please respond to [email protected], or to 780-496-1795, by noon on Monday May 11 with your name and the time of the session you'll be attending.

Medwards
29-04-2009, 04:18 PM
I think we should all be happy about this. Finally the city is seeing the light? (The light we at c2e have been trying to shine on for only a few years now)

LRT needs to be thought and planned at a city wide level, and not just west end to downtown or southside to downtown (piece by piece).

YAY!

grish
29-04-2009, 05:08 PM
this is definitely a YEY!!! news. This is also something that will bring every side of the debate together.

edmonton daily photo
29-04-2009, 05:11 PM
Now they just need to lump in the closing of the airport with it..

A city wide system cannot be planned until this is finalized.

This is very very exciting.

DTrobotnik
29-04-2009, 05:12 PM
wha? good public transit might happen? i feel like buying someone a pint

DTrobotnik
29-04-2009, 05:31 PM
eventually we'll need a ring lrt too

NINTman
29-04-2009, 06:07 PM
^Well, at least BRT can handle that one.

edmonton daily photo
29-04-2009, 06:20 PM
Yep.. Just have an LRT station at diffrent points on the Anthony Henday, with express busses bouncing from point to point. ;-)

Edmcowboy11
29-04-2009, 06:21 PM
^That would work for me.

The_Cat
29-04-2009, 08:29 PM
I think that having the express buses along Henday would really unite Edmonton, especially if residents could get from one end of the city to another in 30 minutes.

I would like to see Edmonton identify potential choke points in traffic (my guesses would include 114 Street, University-Belgravia, 97 Street/Yellowhead, Connors Hill at Bonnie Doon and Stony Plain Road/142-149 Street) and build the LRT out in those directions.

What I think would be the greatest priority would be building another LRT bridge across the North Saskatchewan River to reduce congestion in the River Valley. Of course, any LRT is good for the city.

RTA
29-04-2009, 09:03 PM
I don't see why we need nor what benefit can be provided by a "ring" LRT or anything along the Henday. What need will this serve, and what benefit will this provide, present or future? What demographic of people need a train that circles around the city, hitting areas that are zoned for either sprawiling suburbs or industrial development, with little present development? What sources and destinations are matched and joined by such a system?

Edmonton PRT
29-04-2009, 09:44 PM
I agree with RTA. Ring Road transit is way to far out and will only benefit developers who want to profit from further urban sprawl.

We need better transit in mature neighbourhoods to encourage densification and give people the choice to get rid of the second car or not require a car at all.

NINTman
30-04-2009, 08:52 AM
Uh, well you see - once you have multiple LRT lines intersecting AHD (i.e: SLRT, SELRT, ELRT, WLRT, NWLRT, NELRT), when this situation occurs central Edmonton would then have excellent transit - I think then it is entirely reasonable to connect them with BRT on AHD.

Suburban sprawl already exists in Edmonton along AHD. I would hope that AHD will now act as a development barrier and that new suburban developments outside the bound of AHD would be cancelled or at least transit-oriented. We cannot just ignore these places, unless you are willing to demolish them.

Once a full LRT network is in place, an AHD BRT is entirely justified for completeness.

Ultimately you encourage densification in central areas by providing amentities, and a higher quality of life, rather than stifling other existant areas...seriously..

NINTman
30-04-2009, 08:55 AM
^besides it does not even need to be a fancy ring BRT, it could just be a freaking bus!!!

Is that fair enough for the morally inept suburban dwellers?

RTA
30-04-2009, 10:32 AM
Uh, well you see - once you have multiple LRT lines intersecting AHD (i.e: SLRT, SELRT, ELRT, WLRT, NWLRT, NELRT), when this situation occurs central Edmonton would then have excellent transit - I think then it is entirely reasonable to connect them with BRT on AHD.

Why is that reasonable if they already connect in the inner city?


Suburban sprawl already exists in Edmonton along AHD. I would hope that AHD will now act as a development barrier and that new suburban developments outside the bound of AHD would be cancelled or at least transit-oriented. We cannot just ignore these places, unless you are willing to demolish them.

Nothing around the AHD can be considered transit-oriented. The buffer that is the entire TUC pretty much makes development within it impossible and accessibility limited.


Once a full LRT network is in place, an AHD BRT is entirely justified for completeness.

You still haven't explained how it is justified, what need it fulfills, what sources and destinations it connects, etc.


Ultimately you encourage densification in central areas by providing amentities, and a higher quality of life, rather than stifling other existant areas...seriously..

Exactly, so why would we need an LRT running a ring around the lowest-density areas, within the least developable (a word I made up just now) corridor, that has no discernable source or destination?


^besides it does not even need to be a fancy ring BRT, it could just be a freaking bus!!!

Even so, you need to do a better job explaining what need it would serve.


Is that fair enough for the morally inept suburban dwellers?

I'm not sure where this comment comes from. I can't even see how "morally inept suburban dwellers" could benefit from this.

moahunter
30-04-2009, 11:05 AM
^I think when people talk about a ring, it is a very long term thing, maybe 30 years away or so. I can see the logic to it one day - it should be very cheap given all the space by AHD and would allow for more parkNrides and similar. Not a priority though, and BRT could be explored first.

edmonton daily photo
30-04-2009, 11:07 AM
Ok..

So the ONLY way I can then benifit from the advantages of having a ring road, such as the henday, is if I own a car?

Why did we build the ring road and what purpose does the ring road serve?

Answer those questions and then tell me why a mass transit user can have access to those same benifits.

Jasper
30-04-2009, 11:14 AM
^to accommodate sprawl (to a large extent)

RTA
30-04-2009, 11:16 AM
^I think when people talk about a ring, it is a very long term thing, maybe 30 years away or so. I can see the logic to it one day - it should be very cheap given all the space by AHD and would allow for more parkNrides and similar. Not a priority though, and BRT could be explored first.

30 years? I'd say more like 100, if that. The land around AHD is low-density industrial and low-density residential. It's not likely that these areas will ever develop anything that could make BRT or LRT within the TUC viable or even useful.

moahunter
30-04-2009, 11:18 AM
^You may be right. A third lane for AHD will happen in 30 years I guess (wish they would build that now on the north section, so it can be done at the outset).

Medwards
30-04-2009, 11:20 AM
^to accommodate sprawl (to a large extent)

the efficient movement of goods, and people?

RTA
30-04-2009, 11:21 AM
So the ONLY way I can then benifit from the advantages of having a ring road, such as the henday, is if I own a car?

Why did we build the ring road and what purpose does the ring road serve?

Answer those questions and then tell me why a mass transit user can have access to those same benifits.

Just because we have a road does not mean we have to run buses or LRT along it.

The purpose of the ring road is acually pretty clear - to move people and goods around the city without having to go through it when it is unneccesary to do so, using an available corridor that allows the road to expand as needed without massive property acquisitions.

Basically, it's a big regional bypass.

Now that I've answered that, tell me what benefit you - assuming you do not own a car and are a mass transit user - could get from BRT or LRT service along this highway, that runs along the perimeter of the city? So far no one has answered this question.

MrOilers
30-04-2009, 11:21 AM
The only time I've used the Anthony Henday is to get out onto a highway somewhere faster, or to get from the North end of the city to the International Airport. It connects cars to freeways and highways. That's it.

There's really no purpose to the ring road for a bus rider (unless they are going to the airport or something, but public transit to the airport is a whole other can of worms).

edmonton daily photo
30-04-2009, 11:30 AM
So the ONLY way I can then benifit from the advantages of having a ring road, such as the henday, is if I own a car?

Why did we build the ring road and what purpose does the ring road serve?

Answer those questions and then tell me why a mass transit user can have access to those same benifits.

Just because we have a road does not mean we have to run buses or LRT along it.

The purpose of the ring road is acually pretty clear - to move people and goods around the city without having to go through it when it is unneccesary to do so, using an available corridor that allows the road to expand as needed without massive property acquisitions.

Basically, it's a big regional bypass.

Now that I've answered that, tell me what benefit you - assuming you do not own a car and are a mass transit user - could get from BRT or LRT service along this highway, that runs along the perimeter of the city? So far no one has answered this question.

For the exact reasons you list.. You answered your own question. To move people and goods around the city without having to go through it when it is unneccesary to do so.

RTA
30-04-2009, 11:35 AM
For the exact reasons you list.. You answered your own question. To move people and goods around the city without having to go through it when it is unneccesary to do so.

Transit moves people, but not goods. In any case, from where to where would transit be carrying people along here?

Medwards
30-04-2009, 11:38 AM
Just as a note- the route 324 uses the anthony henday drive...

http://webdocs.edmonton.ca/transit/route_schedules_and_maps/future/RT324.pdf

blainehamilton
30-04-2009, 11:39 AM
There's really no purpose to the ring road for a bus rider (unless they are going to the airport or something, but public transit to the airport is a whole other can of worms).


That's where you're wrong. As mentioned above: its for 'the efficent movement of people and goods'.

Once the AHD is fully ringed and interchanged, going from St Albert to Sherwood Park, or from Mill Woods to West Edmonton mall will be a breeze. The Airport, Fort Saskatchewan, Nisku, etc will still be a trip outwards, but the local communities bordering the ring road will enjoy newfound high speed access. Once Park n Ride facilites exist on multiple points on a completed AHD, there will be a need for transit to move between these points.

An example would be someone who lives in SW Edmonton, commutes with a carpool to Fort Saskatchewan from a carpool lot on that side of town. Or someone who lives in Beaumont but works in St Albert. The park n ride lots and an express ring bus service both do double duty to take excessive traffic off the ring road. That makes the 3rd lane not as much of a necessity until into the future.

And one just has to look at the community buildup along Elerslie Road and the West end to understand the development that will happen around the entire AHD ring in the next 10 to 20 years. The bus service isn't required now, but once the park n ride lots are in place, you can bet your *** it will be a required and DEMANDED service.

NINTman
30-04-2009, 12:34 PM
Oh boy...

case study:

Person wants to travel from St. Albert to Century Park.

Route option 1: Get on at St. Albert LRT Station, ride inbound on NWLRT stopping at various stations until a downtown station. Transfer to SLRT, stopping at SLRT stations until Century Park.

Route option 2: Go to St. Albert Regional transit centre with LRT and bus connections. Take the circle bus route to Ellerslie LRT station, making an intermediate stop at the Lewis Estates station. Get on SLRT to ride up to Century Park.


You see, connecting downtown is great unless all you have to do is a crosstown trip. This circle bus would be faster.

When the LRT network is fully built, a circle bus is appropriate for COMPLETENESS, as a quick ferry between outer transit stations.

I am NOT TALKING ABOUT TOD OPPORTUNITIES or anything like that, I am talking about system efficiency. A bus connecting LRT stations that are adjacent to AHD (of which I can count only 6 stops) would be a good use of already existing infrastructure (AHD) to connect peripheral stations - and it can be a cheap dirty bus! A circle LRT line would be absolutely preposterous.

Is what I'm suggesting completely inefficient?

NINTman
30-04-2009, 12:40 PM
Believe me I would rather the city were not so huge in area to require this - but do you think there is absolutely no need for a simple crosstown bus route running along the periphery?

Medwards
30-04-2009, 12:41 PM
NINTMAN - I'll agree with When... but we aren't there yet, we have a long way to go, and right now, a bus on the ring road makes little sense.

NINTman
30-04-2009, 12:43 PM
Even with the full network and circle bus route, I would still rather live centrally.

Why?

Central areas are still the most dynamic area of the city. And the LRT network still gets me to all places in the central core much faster than having to ride in from the suburbs, or take a stinking AHD bus route...

NINTman
30-04-2009, 12:44 PM
NINTMAN - I'll agree with When... but we aren't there yet, we have a long way to go, and right now, a bus on the ring road makes little sense.

I said WHEN the full system is built.

I never said anything about a AHD circle bus route NOW.

In that case: Build the LRT network. LRT, LRT, LRT, LRT, rah rah rah

RTA
30-04-2009, 12:45 PM
Once the AHD is fully ringed and interchanged, going from St Albert to Sherwood Park, or from Mill Woods to West Edmonton mall will be a breeze. The Airport, Fort Saskatchewan, Nisku, etc will still be a trip outwards, but the local communities bordering the ring road will enjoy newfound high speed access. Once Park n Ride facilites exist on multiple points on a completed AHD, there will be a need for transit to move between these points.

An example would be someone who lives in SW Edmonton, commutes with a carpool to Fort Saskatchewan from a carpool lot on that side of town. Or someone who lives in Beaumont but works in St Albert. The park n ride lots and an express ring bus service both do double duty to take excessive traffic off the ring road. That makes the 3rd lane not as much of a necessity until into the future.

And one just has to look at the community buildup along Elerslie Road and the West end to understand the development that will happen around the entire AHD ring in the next 10 to 20 years. The bus service isn't required now, but once the park n ride lots are in place, you can bet your *** it will be a required and DEMANDED service.

What you're thinking is more akin to a commuter bus or rail system like GO Transit or the West Coast Express. But those systems operate in regions that are more linear and stil connect through several major centres, not skirting around them, and stop at locations with relatively high density, not at parking lots in a utility corridor.

Of the number of people who make a commute like you propose, how many of those would you forsee shifting their commuting patterns to include parking at a park-and-ride, taking a train that skirts the city stopping at other parking lots along the way, getting off at another end of the city, and then busing, taking the LRT, or ??? to wherever they are ultimately headed, assuming such service even exists?

The AHD, after all, is a freeway that serves this purpose already for people who drive cars, how is adding all this parking and stopping and changing modes supposed to be more convenient for them?

Transit isn't for everyone and cannot be expected to serve every possible need. And of all the needs that we can serve, this one has to be pretty damn low on the priority scale.

RTA
30-04-2009, 12:53 PM
case study:

Person wants to travel from St. Albert to Century Park.

Route option 1: Get on at St. Albert LRT Station, ride inbound on NWLRT stopping at various stations until a downtown station. Transfer to SLRT, stopping at SLRT stations until Century Park.

Route option 2: Go to St. Albert Regional transit centre with LRT and bus connections. Take the circle bus route to Ellerslie LRT station, making an intermediate stop at the Lewis Estates station. Get on SLRT to ride up to Century Park.


You see, connecting downtown is great unless all you have to do is a crosstown trip. This circle bus would be faster.

How many stops would this bus make? How many does it need to make in order to make it a cost-effective route? How much time is added to the trip to make these transfers from bus/LRT-to-bus-to-LRT again?


When the LRT network is fully built, a circle bus is appropriate for COMPLETENESS, as a quick ferry between outer transit stations.

I am NOT TALKING ABOUT TOD OPPORTUNITIES or anything like that, I am talking about system efficiency. A bus connecting LRT stations that are adjacent to AHD (of which I can count only 6 stops) would be a good use of already existing infrastructure (AHD) to connect peripheral stations - and it can be a cheap dirty bus! A circle LRT line would be absolutely preposterous.

Is what I'm suggesting completely inefficient?

I think so. I don't foresee even a circle-bus servicing enough commuters to make it viable. Even now, commuting patterns that could use transit this way are minimal at best, and 20-30-50 years from now, I imagine they will shift even more away from this kind of pattern, and become more centralized as we continue to move away from an industrial economy to a more knowledge-based one, as well as moving away from further sprawl into more compact cities.

NINTman
30-04-2009, 12:53 PM
And of all the needs that we can serve, this one has to be pretty damn low on the priority scale.

Totally fair enough. I was just suggesting it for when the full LRT network is built up, when we're all bored of talking transit, this circle bus might be something to spice it up. :eek:

Medwards
30-04-2009, 12:55 PM
edit to del and point out...RTA said what I wanted to say even better then what I had wrote here.... this is now a FLUFF POST!

edmonton daily photo
30-04-2009, 12:56 PM
No.. It's not a commuter buss, It's just another way of moving people around within a city.

Google ring road busses. THis Idea is not a new concept.

edmonton daily photo
30-04-2009, 12:57 PM
so - this bus thats going from St Albert to Century Park via Anthony Henday drive - I'll assume it doesn't have to stop along the way?? And that there will be significant enough demand to warrant a direct bus going from St Albert to Century Park? Because if it has to tetter off the Henday to pick up passengers, at lets say WEM, and Lewis Estates Transit Center, and maybe winderemere/ambleside as well... I think the LRT would be faster. This is why now and even a long time into the future, I don't forsee a need or significant demand for a direct bus between St Albert and Century Park.

That buss goes between LRT/AHD Transit nodes

NINTman
30-04-2009, 12:59 PM
I imagine [commuting patterns] will shift even more away from this kind of pattern, and become more centralized as we continue to move away from an industrial economy to a more knowledge-based one.

Possibly yes, I hope so.

NINTman
30-04-2009, 01:01 PM
case study:

Person wants to travel from St. Albert to Century Park.

Route option 1: Get on at St. Albert LRT Station, ride inbound on NWLRT stopping at various stations until a downtown station. Transfer to SLRT, stopping at SLRT stations until Century Park.

Route option 2: Go to St. Albert Regional transit centre with LRT and bus connections. Take the circle bus route to Ellerslie LRT station, making an intermediate stop at the Lewis Estates station. Get on SLRT to ride up to Century Park.


You see, connecting downtown is great unless all you have to do is a crosstown trip. This circle bus would be faster.

How many stops would this bus make?

St. Albert Station - Lewis Estates Station - Ellerslie Station

For that trip, 3 stops, 1 intermediate

moahunter
30-04-2009, 01:17 PM
Totally fair enough. I was just suggesting it for when the full LRT network is built up, when we're all bored of talking transit, this circle bus might be something to spice it up. :eek:
It certainly caused some reaction :-) Thinking some more, when the third lane is built on the AHD (which seems inevitable to me, the current two are almost already chock-a-bloc), that would be a good time to do it. Make that lane a bus lane (or perhaps, bus lane at peak hours only).

In Tokyo they have a ring road, and a ring train - 3 to 5 million passangers daily:

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fl20060625x1.html

It will be a while before we get there though.

blainehamilton
01-05-2009, 01:31 PM
That leads me back to my point - not now, but eventually.

I would expect to see ring bus service once E town hits the 1.5mil mark, with a metro size of 2 to 2.5 million people. By then, development should ring the entire AHD by a couple of km, and SLRT, NELRT, NLRT, WLRT will be in service.

Maybe 10 years, which isn't that long in the grand scheme of things. Pays to start planning this stuff ahead, especially if it is going to involve coordination with multiple municipalities!

Trying to get regular commuter transit service to YEG should serve as a lesson here. It was needed 5 to 10 years ago, and still isn't a reality...

deedub35
01-05-2009, 03:58 PM
Read this on COE. Not sure if it was posted earlier.

Planning for Higher Density, Walkability Around the Stadium LRT Station
May 01, 2009

The City of Edmonton is working on a transit-oriented development plan for the area surrounding the Stadium LRT Station. The plan aims to create a vibrant, higher density, mixed-use, and walkable community that is integrated with the LRT station making transit easy to use.

The second of three community workshops is being held so that interested citizens can learn about and give feedback to development alternatives for the area.

Stadium Station Transit Oriented Development Plan, Community Workshop #2
Date: Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Time: 7 – 8:30pm
Location: Santa Maria Goretti Centre – Theatre, 11050-90 Street

etownboarder
01-05-2009, 04:18 PM
Read this on COE. Not sure if it was posted earlier.

Planning for Higher Density, Walkability Around the Stadium LRT Station
May 01, 2009

The City of Edmonton is working on a transit-oriented development plan for the area surrounding the Stadium LRT Station. The plan aims to create a vibrant, higher density, mixed-use, and walkable community that is integrated with the LRT station making transit easy to use.

The second of three community workshops is being held so that interested citizens can learn about and give feedback to development alternatives for the area.

Stadium Station Transit Oriented Development Plan, Community Workshop #2
Date: Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Time: 7 – 8:30pm
Location: Santa Maria Goretti Centre – Theatre, 11050-90 Street

I would definitely look into living in that area of town if a good TOD were developed. Some new towers, some retail, close to the river valley, 5 minute LRT ride to work... sounds ideal.

Medwards
10-05-2009, 12:55 PM
Reminder: This meeting is this week!!!

If you haven't signed up yet, you have until tomorrow (Monday, May 11th) to do so!!

I've signed up for the 7-9 meeting!!! Hope to see many of you there

edmonton daily photo
13-05-2009, 09:50 PM
Did anyone go to the session??? I did!

I am very excited. They brought in a consultant from England.

The proposal is to go to a low floor system on all new lines. The existing 3 lines That includes NAIT will remain high floor. The system is also to be redesigned into a more urban focus with more stops and better tie in with the existing communities. (like the european style systems)
Council will be taking thoughts and comments on June 3rd.

So all you who want a station at the brown site near clairview and a station between southgate and century please start celebrating.

edmonton daily photo
13-05-2009, 09:51 PM
ooo PS. This is a very high level, broad plan

kkozoriz
13-05-2009, 10:01 PM
Did anyone go to the session??? I did!

I am very excited. They brought in a consultant from England.

The proposal is to go to a low floor system on all new lines. The existing 3 lines That includes NAIT will remain high floor. The system is also to be redesigned into a more urban focus with more stops and better tie in with the existing communities. (like the european style systems)
Council will be taking thoughts and comments on June 3rd.

So all you who want a station at the brown site near clairview and a station between southgate and century please start celebrating.

I'd still like to see the WLRT as high floor and running down 87th ave. That would give us two complete lines through the tunnels, Clareview/Gorman to Lewis Estates and St. Albert/Castledowns to Century park/Heritage valley.

edmonton daily photo
13-05-2009, 10:03 PM
Tunnel really won't support it.

the 87 ave option does not fit in with the urban delivery system.

it's no longer about getting from point a-b in a straight line

The_Cat
13-05-2009, 10:06 PM
I think low floor will be great, but I think it's more for WLRT, or a line across Strathcona/Mill Creek to Bonnie Doon. I think high floor should be used for lines going out to St. Albert or Sherwood Park.

edmonton daily photo
13-05-2009, 10:10 PM
The scope of this very broad study would say no, and infact the further out from the dt core you go the less impact the train has.

It may never make it out to the park

RTA
13-05-2009, 10:13 PM
Tunnel really won't support it.

the 87 ave option does not fit in with the urban delivery system.

it's no longer about getting from point a-b in a straight line

I think WEM-UofA-Downtown NEEDS fast, high-capacity LRT like our current system provides.

And the tunnel would support two complete lines just fine, I'm not sure why you think it won't.

highlander
13-05-2009, 10:35 PM
The tunnel will absolutely support WLRT if it attaches from the S end. IF the so-called expert told you that it won't work then they are lying through their teeth.

Logically, if NLRT works, why can't WLRT work?

Beyond WLRT I think the shoft to low-floor and slightly more frequent stations is great. It's odd, though, that we are in the finishing stages of the ultimate in widely spaced stations and we have already figured out that another model might be better.

Cat, I don't get what you're saying. Wouldn't a line to strathcona county have to pass right by bonney doon? Why would we build parallel systems? why would we build high-impact just for county residents when most of the community impacts (damage) would be in edmonton? Especially when low floor can move just as fast as highfloor?

The_Cat
13-05-2009, 10:50 PM
I guess I need to learn a little more about low floor transit Highlander. Somehow, I thought that low floor LRT was lower density and slower. I was thinking of LRT for Sherwood Park residents to take off some of the traffic between Sherwood Park and Edmonton. A line along Baseline/101 Avenue would work great, and I agree that much of this cost should be borne by Sherwood Park/Strathcona County.

Of course, dedicated bus lanes on the Sherwood Park Freeway would also work.

edmonton daily photo
13-05-2009, 10:57 PM
I think WEM-UofA-Downtown NEEDS fast, high-capacity LRT like our current system provides.

And the tunnel would support two complete lines just fine, I'm not sure why you think it won't.


I AM just regurgitating what was told. 3 lines at current capacity targets 4 with if you reduced frequancy. As he and his firm have designed a number of LRT lines in cities across the world I greatly trust hisjudgement

the plan with be 3 lines below and 3 lines above.

Medwards
13-05-2009, 11:24 PM
The consultant from England said our tunnel could do 24 trains per hour, per direction. Thats a train every 2.5 mins.

If we have two lines going through there (Gorman <-> WEM and Century Park <-> NAIT> the most we can do is a train every 5 mins per line in each direction.

Medwards
13-05-2009, 11:26 PM
in case anyone was wondering, the consultant firm Edmonton is using for this LRT Network Plan is : http://www.steerdaviesgleave.com/

bicycles
13-05-2009, 11:30 PM
sounds good to me. I still think the Millwoods to DT line needs to be high floor LRT but it can be above ground with a stop at Churchill maybe then continue on 102 or 103 ave above ground and terminate well.. somewhere

Green Grovenor
13-05-2009, 11:34 PM
The city's transportation department is recommending that council approve a second LRT line through the downtown core.

It would be a surface route, occupying lanes currently reserved for automobiles, exclusively.

The announcement was part of a workshop on LRT networking at Grant MacEwan College. Perhaps 120 people attended the evening session on May 13th.

Other news:

- The NAIT line will be the last built using the current high-floor technology. The proposal is to use low-floor technology exclusively on west and south-east routes. (Cost of expanding using existing model: $14 billion in 2009 dollars).

- There will be no tunnels or overpasses on the new lines.

- The idea of connecting the International Airport with downtown using LRT is so off the table, the city isn't even going to study the possibility.

- Likewise, LRT will be a city project instead of a regional project, with expansion to St. Albert and Sherwood Park not happening for many decades, owing to low ridership projections.

- It isn't a priority, but perhaps LRT connecting Bonnie Doon and the University could happen, someday.

- If WLRT follows a northern alignment (very likely), there will BRT to South Campus along 87th Avenue/Whitemud Road/Fox Drive. (Hint: the infrastructure is partly completed.)

- The officials were quite open in acknowledging that the current system has not worked well as a city-shaping tool: "Results have been limited," is the exact wording.

- If new TOD possibilities arise along the current route (for example, between Churchill and Stadium), the city will consider adding stations.

- Trams will use overhead wiring as opposed to surface/rail integration. (But don't call them trams.)

So -- how should the "urban train" get through the downtown core: 104th Avenue, 102nd Avenue or Jasper Avenue?

edmonton daily photo
13-05-2009, 11:37 PM
The city's transportation department is recommending that council approve a second LRT line through the downtown core.

It would be a surface route, occupying lanes currently reserved for automobiles, exclusively.

The announcement was part of a workshop on LRT networking at Grant MacEwan College. Perhaps 120 people attended the evening session on May 13th.

Other news:

- The NAIT line will be the last built using the current high-floor technology. The proposal is to use low-floor technology exclusively on west and south-east routes. (Cost of expanding using existing model: $14 billion in 2009 dollars).

- There will be no tunnels or overpasses on the new lines.

- The idea of connecting the International Airport with downtown using LRT is so off the table, the city isn't even going to study the possibility.

- Likewise, LRT will be a city project instead of a regional project, with expansion to St. Albert and Sherwood Park not happening for many decades, owing to low ridership projections.

- It isn't a priority, but perhaps LRT connecting Bonnie Doon and the University could happen, someday.

- If WLRT follows a northern alignment (very likely), there will BRT to South Campus along 87th Avenue/Whitemud Road/Fox Drive. (Hint: the infrastructure is partly completed.)

- The officials were quite open in acknowledging that the current system has not worked well as a city-shaping tool: "Results have been limited," is the exact wording.

- If new TOD possibilities arise along the current route (for example, between Churchill and Stadium), the city will consider adding stations.

- Trams will use overhead wiring as opposed to surface/rail integration. (But don't call them trams.)

So -- how should the "urban train" get through the downtown core: 104th Avenue, 102nd Avenue or Jasper Avenue?

there is a thread for all this already.. and your take on a few of the issues is a little skewed. Service to the airport was not part ofthis study.. the study is not a regional plan, but what us best for edmonton.

More over this is a HIGH Level plan.. the city isn't going to do anything yet.

I'm actually very upset and the way your presenting this.

jstock
14-05-2009, 12:02 AM
So are they just going to leave the entire system south of Churchill "unbalanced"??
I can understand how a Y intersection would work, but unless the southern leg gets double the number of trains as the NLRT and NELRT lines, I can't see this working.

I would like more information.

This is really annoying considering that I have to write my paper on the future of LRT in the city, and they can't seem to get their facts straight. I understand the need for LRT asap, but seriously...

>_<

highlander
14-05-2009, 12:10 AM
The $14B number seems like something cooked up to push a particular agenda. Maybe that's the cost of a full built-out system in highfloor, but whatabout just one more leg? If high-floor is really that bad you'ld think they would propose NLRT as low-floor as well. There's only 40 million dollars sunk in the epcor tunnel, if the savings are so great then you'ld probably make that up by the time you got to 118 avenue.

edmonton daily photo
14-05-2009, 12:12 AM
jstock..

You have to understand that the current LRT was designed in the 70's. Many things have changed re: urban planning and the way we view our cities. Had LRT been started from today from scratch, we would have a vey diffrent system.

You should write your paper the way you feel LRT fits into the city that you want to live in. Don't rehash others ideas, maqke your own

edmonton daily photo
14-05-2009, 12:14 AM
The $14B number seems like something cooked up to push a particular agenda. Maybe that's the cost of a full built-out system in highfloor, but whatabout just one more leg? If high-floor is really that bad you'ld think they would propose NLRT as low-floor as well. There's only 40 million dollars sunk in the epcor tunnel, if the savings are so great then you'ld probably make that up by the time you got to 118 avenue.


GG is picking key items and not giving you the full picture.

There were cost estimates provided for a very large regional system.

jstock
14-05-2009, 12:17 AM
jstock..

You have to understand that the current LRT was designed in the 70's. Many things have changed re: urban planning and the way we view our cities. Had LRT been started from today from scratch, we would have a vey diffrent system.

You should write your paper the way you feel LRT fits into the city that you want to live in. Don't rehash others ideas, maqke your own

I'm not saying it's a bad idea, I am just a little annoyed that the "current" facts are actually not very current at all. If they are proposing low floor technology, it should be listed somewhere on the LRT Projects page.
Just miffed that my essay needs to be rewritten now.

RichardS
14-05-2009, 03:48 AM
I'm annoyed I missed this forum. Oh well, paycheque or pontificate on a line that really I have little input into...yet.

Anyway, other than a little cheaper station design with low floor, what are the real advantages of it?

As for extra "stations", why?

Maybe I am an airline guy too much, but I like to keep my equipment choices simple to get those economies of scale in maintenance, staffing, and deployment. I am also a bit miffed at the comment "designed in the 1970's" as if that is a bad thing. If we actually went through on a majority of the plans conceived in the 1970's like, oh I don't know, a city-wide LRT network with these pathetic high floor cars, wouldn't we now be further ahead? ;) If we started it from scratch at the time of the Underground, would we be pathetic and stupid in 2009? Won't some ideas 30 years from now make the young'uns of the day think this discussion is silly and ancient?

How about we finish what we started for once?

RichardS
14-05-2009, 03:57 AM
(...)

the 87 ave option does not fit in with the urban delivery system.

it's no longer about getting from point a-b in a straight line

Gee, I remember saying this a few times on the 87th avenue wLRT thread...actually more like "Mass transit is more than drawing a line on onion paper connecting 2 dots and saying voila"...but hey...;)

To the point though, I see comments about not wanting tunnels and bridges. Was that a common thread within the session yesterday?

highlander
14-05-2009, 08:27 AM
How about we finish what we started for once?

This is the key. I suspect that the added cost of an extra few KM through downtown will east all the savings of switching to low-floor. It might actually take longer to get WLRT low-floor.

After NLRT gets to 137 at tehe least and a highfloor WLRT gets to WEM then we can start on low-floor. By then we'll have close to 200 high-floor vehicles - I'd guess as many as can be effectively services in the shop space at DL Macdonald - but there are enough common components between low and highfloor vehicles that maintenance can be kept simple.

Medwards
14-05-2009, 08:29 AM
Remember: Nothing said in these meetings are set in stone. These are the recommendations they will be making to city council.
Take these meetings as a broad overview of ideas that could maybe happen.
The way some of you are responding in this thread is that some of these broad ideas are whats going to happen. No routes were determined in this meeting at all. Was not the point of it.

edmonton daily photo
14-05-2009, 08:40 AM
Don't be upset about the comment regarding the 70's. it just means that the way in which we use and view transit has shifted in the last 40 years (esp LRT) but the way we are moving forward with LRT today in this city has not adapted.

He talked about the way in which we design our current LRT infrustructure, and how it is designed after a heavier style rail. The huge baricades and right of ways with baricades and underpasses, not to mension stations are not human sized, make the sytem unfriendly.

He also talked about not taking the easy route, LRT is about people not whats easiest to build. He also talked about the importance of NOT tearing down developement to install LRT.

All in all he refered to it as civalized design.

I chatted with teh gent after the presentation, he is EXTREAMLY knowledgable.

IanO
14-05-2009, 08:46 AM
"I think WEM-UofA-Downtown NEEDS fast, high-capacity LRT like our current system provides."

exactly!

actually it needed it 10 yrs ago

grish
14-05-2009, 08:57 AM
"I think WEM-UofA-Downtown NEEDS fast, high-capacity LRT like our current system provides."

exactly!

actually it needed it 10 yrs ago

meet me in the wLRT thread to tell you why this option is bad.

edmonton daily photo
14-05-2009, 08:57 AM
Finally I want to speak about a train to the airport....

I don't agree with this,not because it wouldn't work, but because there are few LRT connections to an airport i would ever use.

Most connections are slow and akward. (i am going to be reamed out for this).
Express Coaches are much more efficient and enjoyable than Airport LRT.

These are my experiences...
The most positve one is San Fran on the Bart - cost 11 dollars one way. The Bart is more of a commuter rail it was fairly fast, our hotel was only about a 2 blocks from a station and I was only going for the weekend so all I had was a backpack.

Paris. We arrived at gar du nord and took the metro to charles de gaule. I was in France for a month. I had to haul 2 large suitcases through long tunnels, up and down stairs, squeeze my bags onto packed trains and then fight with people trying to get on and off. we spent an hour doing what a 20-30 min express coach would have done.

Chicago - Cost 2.50 and it takes forever, all the same problems with Paris.

London - They now have the Hethrow express which costs a mint, but the picadilly line again is slow and you fight with reg commuter traffic on cars that are not ment for carrying luggage.

Almost everytime I travel now I take express motor coaches with point to point drop offs, or I split cabs with strangers. LRT is one part of an overall transit masterplan, but not the solution for everything. Our existing line has 5 million lines and is somehwere arounf 10 km long I believe... The international had 5-7 million passangers. even if ridership matched passanger levels we are building 20 some KM of track to double our LRT ridership at a HUGE cost, where we could build half of that within the city, get the same results AND spur developement within the city.

Anyways.. Like I said I expect to be raked over the coals for that one.

deedub35
14-05-2009, 09:01 AM
Tunnel really won't support it.


Our tunnel can support more than you think edmonton daily photo.



The consultant from England said our tunnel could do 24 trains per hour, per direction. Thats a train every 2.5 mins. If we have two lines going through there (Gorman <-> WEM and Century Park <-> NAIT> the most we can do is a train every 5 mins per line in each direction.


Or three lines for that matter at 7.5 minutes.

Medwards
14-05-2009, 09:06 AM
meet me in the wLRT thread to tell you why this option is bad.
we've heard you many many many many times. But, you'll repeat yourself again I'm sure.

edmonton daily photo
14-05-2009, 09:07 AM
I would suspect that he knows what he is talkign about, and has access to info that we do not. he said 3-4 lines. Please don't forget he doesn't work in a vacume either he works along out city people who provide him with this info. I never questioned him on where he go his info from, as I personally want to see lower floor options used as much as possible.

Please remember that teh frequance of our trains today may not be the frequancy of out trains tomorrow. They are palnning for 30-40 years out.

deedub35
14-05-2009, 09:12 AM
Most connections are slow and akward. (i am going to be reamed out for this).
Express Coaches are much more efficient and enjoyable than Airport LRT.

In my opinion it is not always about speed but more convenience.

I live downtown and I have often used the Airport Express shuttle van service. Although there is a schedule, sometimes the vans don't come. A couple of times I have waited and no vans came and I had to end up taking a cab to the airport. As well, most of the times that I have been on the van, by the time the van makes it to the later hotels, it is full and the people waiting in the lobby are choked and end up taking a cab. How convenient is that? And a cab to the airport is not cheap.

For a visitor to our city, hoping on the LRT at the airport and going straight to downtown and when they leave back to the airport would be super convenient. Arguably not the quickest but there is no fuss.

I've taken the Picadilly line a couple of times to Heathrow. Yeah, not the quickest but it is virtually guaranteed to get you there with no fuss and I quite liked the scenary as the train made its way into the city or back to Heathrow.

grish
14-05-2009, 09:13 AM
we've heard you many many many many times. But, you'll repeat yourself again I'm sure.

missed point again and again and again and again and again and again and again. never anything new out of you.

the POINT of my statement is that I do not want people to turn this into another wLRT thread. we have enough of them already. I can repeat it several times until you get it. I seem to have to repeat other points until eventually you get what I am saying.

deedub35
14-05-2009, 09:15 AM
he said 3-4 lines
Exactly. With NLRT we'll have 1.5 lines. More than enough capacity for now and the future.

Green Grovenor
14-05-2009, 09:18 AM
GG is picking key items and not giving you the full picture.

There were cost estimates provided for a very large regional system.

Perhaps, edp, you would very kindly fill in the blanks. I double checked everything I wrote with the transportation department and it is factual. Plus, I met with the head of LRT planning for 35 minutes after the session.

Fine if you want to criticize me and my reporting, but please be constructive about it, by giving more information, not suggesting I'm manipulating the debate by only mentioning "key items." A bulleted recap of a meeting obviously is going to consist of key items.

RTA
14-05-2009, 09:19 AM
I hope I'm wrong in reading some of this that he city may consider abandoning expanding the current high-floor LRT network in favour of a new exclusively low-floor network. The city is big enough to support both types working together, but not dense enough nor designed well enough to run low-floor everywhere, particularly not out to WEM or MW.

highlander
14-05-2009, 09:24 AM
Our tunnel can support more than you think edmonton daily photo.



Or three lines for that matter at 7.5 minutes.

Or 3 lines every 6 minutes if we get serious about scheduling and signalling and keep the common section completely grade separated. Toronto subways are aiming for 105 second headways, there's no reason ( in the tunnel section) that we couldn't do the same.

deedub35
14-05-2009, 09:28 AM
and your take on a few of the issues is a little skewed. Service to the airport was not part ofthis study.. the study is not a regional plan, but what us best for edmonton.

I'm actually very upset and the way your presenting this.

Nothing skewed about it. This is what GG wrote! Why are you upset????

highlander
14-05-2009, 09:28 AM
I hope I'm wrong in reading some of this that he city may consider abandoning expanding the current high-floor LRT network in favour of a new exclusively low-floor network. The city is big enough to support both types working together, but not dense enough nor designed well enough to run low-floor everywhere, particularly not out to WEM or MW.

Could you explain this please? if we're not dense enough for low-floor to millwoods or WEM, how can we be dense enough for low-floor, as highfloor tends to be the higher capacity, more expensive option?

deedub35
14-05-2009, 09:28 AM
Or 3 lines every 6 minutes if we get serious about scheduling and signalling and keep the common section completely grade separated. Toronto subways are aiming for 105 second headways, there's no reason ( in the tunnel section) that we couldn't do the same.
Exactly.

Leendert
14-05-2009, 09:43 AM
A common thread among the last few questions was about LRT service to the airport, and there was a bit of a back and forth between a few audience members and a COE planner.

I think Green Grovenor described the main points brought up in the session presentation quite well.

Some points I took away from the evening:
- switch to low-floor technology (CoE planner confirmed that this was the avenue they would like to pursue as well)
- closer station spacing (400m - 800m)
- if the goal is densification as per municipal land use plan, the consultant suggested adding more stations on the NELRT and SLRT lines
- the NAIT line has advanced too much (property acquisition and design well underway) to switch to low-floor technology
- the way Edmonton does LRT is like heavy rail (heavy on infrastructure with controlled crossings, grade separation, gates, barriers, large stations, etc.)
- ridership projections do not warrant LRT extensions to outlying communities
- only put park-and-ride (or park-and-glide as in Dublin) at the terminal stations (e.g. near the AHD)
- Consultant: (I am paraphrasing): Do not choose the easiest to engineer route, choose the most people friendly route
- Suggested hierarchy: pedestrians, cyclists, transit, priority vehicle traffic (e.g. commercial), general commuter (private) vehicle traffic. The consultant also showed an example with two photographs contrasting the hierarchy between Portland and a Dublin. Portland has a streetcar running in the same lanes as traffic and slowed down by vehicles (i.e. private vehicles are higher in the hierarchy), while the Dublin photo shows separate lanes for their tram and vehicle traffic stopped while the tram zooms past.
- For the core of the city, a map showed a low floor route downtown (parallel to LRT), and a similar line down Whyte avenue, with low-floor north-south connections encircling this area

In my opinion the consultants plan is a vision I can buy into. More frequent stops supporting more development closer to the core, and low floor technology for future lines with frequent stop spacing, although an 87 avenue high-floor WLRT would tie in nicely with NLRT and maximize use of our existing infrastructure).

edmonton daily photo
14-05-2009, 09:52 AM
GG

First the Airport.. the Airport was not part of this study, this is a city study and currently the international is not within the city's boundries.

The maps they showed actually did show st albert being connect in the urban design scheme. The park wasn't. They never said it would take many years and they never said it would have low ridership numbers. They did talk about the amount of ridership compared to the cost to reach outlying communitites and how the city can get the most bang for it's buck , as well as secure funding for a realistic human sized system.

Remeber the the Regional system would have comprised of 200km of track, that is HUGE!

LRT conecting Bonnie Doone to University was never discussed. he did ask us to imagine connecting those communities to lrt.

There are very few FACTS.. this is high level planning Mewards is right. Don't treat any of this as gossple. This is visionary work not detail work. Council has not even agreed to move forward with this, so if new LRT lines were approved today they would move forward in their curent style and design scheme.


When questions were asked if the "city" was setting aside land for this and further ruccus was made, no one was listening to the fact that it was outside the scope of this plan. they kept saying that.

RTA
14-05-2009, 09:54 AM
Could you explain this please? if we're not dense enough for low-floor to millwoods or WEM, how can we be dense enough for low-floor, as highfloor tends to be the higher capacity, more expensive option?

High-floor LRT works well to funnel people in from the outer areas into downtown, as well as between major nodes (Coliseum, UofA, etc.). The city is large enough that we have outlying areas with enough population, and enough of these major nodes to make this viable.

Low floor works well in more inner-city, dense, and compact-designed areas, particularly for the "Hop on, hop off" aspect of it. However, as you get further out of the inner city (say, beyond the "inner ring loop"), low floor becomes less advantageous.

edmonton daily photo
14-05-2009, 09:54 AM
A common thread among the last few questions was about LRT service to the airport, and there was a bit of a back and forth between a few audience members and a COE planner.

I think Green Grovenor described the main points brought up in the session presentation quite well.

Some points I took away from the evening:
- switch to low-floor technology (CoE planner confirmed that this was the avenue they would like to pursue as well)
- closer station spacing (400m - 800m)
- if the goal is densification as per municipal land use plan, the consultant suggested adding more stations on the NELRT and SLRT lines
- the NAIT line has advanced too much (property acquisition and design well underway) to switch to low-floor technology
- the way Edmonton does LRT is like heavy rail (heavy on infrastructure with controlled crossings, grade separation, gates, barriers, large stations, etc.)
- ridership projections do not warrant LRT extensions to outlying communities
- only put park-and-ride (or park-and-glide as in Dublin) at the terminal stations (e.g. near the AHD)
- Consultant: (I am paraphrasing): Do not choose the easiest to engineer route, choose the most people friendly route
- Suggested hierarchy: pedestrians, cyclists, transit, priority vehicle traffic (e.g. commercial), general commuter (private) vehicle traffic. The consultant also showed an example with two photographs contrasting the hierarchy between Portland and a Dublin. Portland has a streetcar running in the same lanes as traffic and slowed down by vehicles (i.e. private vehicles are higher in the hierarchy), while the Dublin photo shows separate lanes for their tram and vehicle traffic stopped while the tram zooms past.
- For the core of the city, a map showed a low floor route downtown (parallel to LRT), and a similar line down Whyte avenue, with low-floor north-south connections encircling this area

In my opinion the consultants plan is a vision I can buy into. More frequent stops supporting more development closer to the core, and low floor technology for future lines with frequent stop spacing, although an 87 avenue high-floor WLRT would tie in nicely with NLRT and maximize use of our existing infrastructure).

ok.. I am getting seriously frustrated..

They cleary said NO ONE is propsing stops every 400-800 km. It's about intigrating land use, people and transit.

Ridership levels and cost when looked at as a package PLUS the logistic of a system so large, and the infrustructure to utalize the infrustructure make regional LRT a HUGE project. Aquiring funding is a concern. They talk about getting realistic amounts of funding and making things sustainable, and intigrating all forms of transit efficently

The maps showen don't have streets they show a concept. the allignemt for these lines have not been chossen. you guys are soooooooo jumping the gun.

deedub35
14-05-2009, 09:57 AM
ok.. I am getting seriously frustrated..

Woah ... chillax dude!

edmonton daily photo
14-05-2009, 10:01 AM
Mewards.. you have at them a bit...

edmonton daily photo
14-05-2009, 10:02 AM
Woah ... chillax dude!

Please don't tell me to chill'ax.

deedub35
14-05-2009, 10:04 AM
Please don't tell me to chill'ax.
Chill - relax. Chillax!

Leendert
14-05-2009, 10:05 AM
ok.. I am getting seriously frustrated..

They cleary said NO ONE is propsing stops every 400-800 km. It's about intigrating land use, people and transit.

Ridership levels and cost when looked at as a package PLUS the logistic of a system so large, and the infrustructure to utalize the infrustructure make regional LRT a HUGE project. Aquiring funding is a concern. They talk about getting realistic amounts of funding and making things sustainable, and intigrating all forms of transit efficently

The maps showen don't have streets they show a concept. the allignemt for these lines have not been chossen. you guys are soooooooo jumping the gun.

What I heard the LRT consultant suggest is that if our vision is to build a more dense city, than a low-floor system with more frequent stop spacing is what should be built. No particular alignments were suggested, but the consultant mentioned that the University and downtown areas already have the density, and those areas would be served well by the type of system he is suggesting. More frequent stop spacing was something he suggested. Not necessarily 400m - 800m stop spacing, but definitely not continuing what we are currently building (2+ km stop spacing).

A sample map included did show a sample scenario with an LRT line just south of the river through the Old Sthrathcona area.

deedub35
14-05-2009, 10:06 AM
A sample map included did show a sample scenario with an LRT line just south of the river through the Old Sthrathcona area.

Anything you can scan?

edmonton daily photo
14-05-2009, 10:09 AM
I have sat in here and listened to people list of things they want

-more stops
-more TOD
-Focus on inner city infill

But no one listens when the experts, and they are experts, say well if you want all that then LRT to the Airport won't work, LRT to the region won't work.

You can't have a mix of commuter and urban. all you end up with is the worst of all. they don't match up.

So you need to start asking yourself what the planners are asking you to do. Decide what kind of city you want to live in. Then start making it happen. THe consultant had a great story. The first low floor urban system was put into france. THe mayor of the city said we are going to close down streets Open up a bunch of sidewalk, move auto traffic and redesign the city. He went to a public vote he got 53% approval, so he went ahead. When it came time to build the second line he did the same thing 93% approval.

We need to start being visionary and not Nit Picky!

Green Grovenor
14-05-2009, 10:11 AM
I'm so p*ssed off at edp's assertion that I'm skewing the facts, I've decided to spend the next hour retyping the "Long-term LRT Expansion Fact Sheet" that was distributed at last night's meeting. It will be posted to the city's website next week.

Page One:

The City of Edmonton's strategic vision calls for a more compact, livable and sustainable city, where people have an opportunity and choose to use alternative transportation modes.... Expanding the LRT network is one of the ways the City is planning to meet these objectives.

LRT Network Plan: The City has developed an overall LRT Network Plan and a comprehensive technical review of its approach to LRT system planning and operation. This includes determining the ultimate long-term future size, scale, and operation of the system.

Recommendations include:

- The ultimate LRT network would have six lines extending to the Northwest, Northeast, East, Southeast, South and the West.

- Growth in outlying communities, even in the long-term, is unlikely to be sufficient to support LRT. Transit service to regional areas, where demand warrants, would be best provided in a different form such as rapid bus or commuter/regional rail.

- LRT Corridor studies need to be completed to identify specific routes, short to medium-term ridership estimates, land-use development potential, and project estimates to help develop priorities.

- The Downtown LRT tunnel does not have the capacity to accommodate all future LRT lines. As a result, corridor studies will take this constraint into account when developing route recommendations.

- LRT lines not tying into the existing LRT system will feature surface (street-level) operation and will provide convenient connections to the existing LRT system in multiple locations.

- An urban-system design should be pursued for the existing system and any new LRT lines.

- Low-floor LRT technology should be adopted for any new LRT line that does not physically tie into the existing LRT system.

Page Two:

The Ulitmate LRT Network: An assessment of long-term regional population and employment growth was used to evaluate the number of lines that should be considered for the ultimate LRT network. A six line LRT system is proposed with service extending to the Northwest, Northeast, East, Southeast, South and West. The West sector requires premium bus service to supplement the LRT service. The high ridership demand in the Northwest sector may suggest the need for a second LRT line, which will be evaluated through the Northwest LRT corridor study currently underway. An LRT line to Strathcona County may be feasible in the long term, depending on future ridership demand and land development.

Page Three:

Regional Connections: LRT is a vital part of an overarching Regional Transit Plan. Other regional transit initiatives such as bus rapid transit, commuter rail, and intermunicipal transit should be pursued to ensure they provide interchange/transfer points to the LRT system.

Logical end points for the LRT network may evolve over time; however, analysis considering long-term regional population and employment growth provides a good indication of the extent of each segment and logical destinations. A full build-out scenario of LRT to the entire region was reviewed. A region-wide LRT network is not practical because there are:

- Limits to the length of the LRT routes when considering vehicle speed, distance and infrastructure costs.

- Urban centres within the region that are a significant distance from Edmonton, and would be better served by other transit solutions (sic).

The Downtown Tunnel: The Downtown tunnel does not have the capacity to accommodate operation of all future LRT lines. Currently, the Northeast, South and Northwest LRT lines are planned for future operation in the tunnel. As the system develops further, there is a potential to add either one additional line, or increase frequency of service on the Northeast, South and Northwest LRT lines. As specific LRT corridor studies are completed, the impact and intergration with the overall network needs to be considered, particularly in how they connect to the central area. Specific route corridor studies will define the most appropriate method of integrating the East, West and Southeast LRT lines with the current system.

Central Area Circulation: The central area, including the Downtown and the University, is the most transit-supportive area because it is a high density activity zone for both population and employment. All LRT routes need to serve the central area and interconnect to provide multiple transfer and destination points. LRT in these areas wil be a surface (street-level), and passengers will be able to transfer between the lines to the existing underground LRT stations, as is common in many other major urban centres around the world.

Providing an East-West connection through Strathcona can improve the overall operational flexibility and increase the number of passengers that can be served through the LRT. Further assessment is needed to define this connection.

Graphic: Central Area Circulation

At the bottom of Page Three is a map showing the North Saskatchewan River flowing through Edmonton. The location of Churchill Station is noted. Coming out of it are three green lines with arrows. They are labelled Northwest, Northeast and South. I presume they represent existing or approved routes. There are also two blue lines. One crosses the river and is tagged Southeast. The other goes West, apparently on 102nd Avenue. Dots suggest it may continue on this alignment beyond downtown. There are is also a blue line that extends south from the west option, over the river, toward Health Sciences Station. From Health Sciences Station, there is a blue line heading East and a dotted line heading West. The East and Southeast lines intersect at approximately Bonnie Doon.

Page Four:

Ridership potential: A high level assessment of the LRT network in the long-term (100 year) time frame provides an indication of ultimate ridership potential. In reviewing the magnitude of potential long-term LRT ridership, the Northwest LRT line shows the highest potential ridership as a new LRT line, followed equally by the Southeast and West, and lastly by the East line.

It is important to consider ridership potential in light of other factors that contribute to the viability of an LRT project. These include costs to build and operate, the likelihood and timelines of potential land-development opportunities, and the availability of funding from other sources of government.

Once specific route corridor studies are completed for all future LRT lines, a detailed business case analysis will be undertaken to identify construction priorities.

Graphic: Long-term Potential LRT Ridership

On a map of Edmonton, current and proposed routes are shown. Between Downtown and Unviersity, there's a wide red line, indicating 120,000+ passengers per day. Yellow lines between Downtown and Stadium Station, Downtown and NAIT and University and South Campus suggest 70,000-120,000 passengers per day. The West and Southeast Lines are both entirely orange: 30,000-70,000 passengers per day. Other orange areas include South Campus to Ellerslie Road, NAIT to 137th Avenue, and Stadium to Clareview Station. Beyond these points, the lines are green, indicating 0-30,000 passengers per day. The East and Health Sciences to Bonnie Doon lines are entirely green.

That's it. Apologies for typos -- I ain't gonna proofread this.

edmonton daily photo
14-05-2009, 10:14 AM
What I heard the LRT consultant suggest is that if our vision is to build a more dense city, than a low-floor system with more frequent stop spacing is what should be built. No particular alignments were suggested, but the consultant mentioned that the University and downtown areas already have the density, and those areas would be served well by the type of system he is suggesting. More frequent stop spacing was something he suggested. Not necessarily 400m - 800m stop spacing, but definitely not continuing what we are currently building (2+ km stop spacing).

A sample map included did show a sample scenario with an LRT line just south of the river through the Old Sthrathcona area.

That picture also would suggest that lrt was to go down 104 ave, when I questioned the gent on it he clearly said. This picture is ther to communicate and idea. Can you call it a map? it has no streets just lines.

A 2+ km stop may be prudent IF it fits in with land use. It's about civalized design. Not about enginering, or doing whats easy, Its about moving people to where people want to go.

There are very few facts to deliver as this is High Level Planning. It's the same as a day dream. A LRT fantasy. It is so far way from Fact it's not funny.

Leendert
14-05-2009, 10:17 AM
Anything you can scan?
Even better, the PDFs for the documents handed out are online:
http://www.edmonton.ca/transportation/ets/lrt_projects/lrt-network-plan.aspx

Direct links to PDFs:
LRT system style:
http://www.edmonton.ca/transportation/200905_LRTSystemStyle.pdf

Long term LRT expansion (showing central area circulation on the third page):
http://www.edmonton.ca/transportation/200905_LongTermLRTExpansion.pdf

Vehicle technology review:
http://www.edmonton.ca/transportation/200905_VehicleTechnologyReview.pdf

deedub35
14-05-2009, 10:17 AM
I have sat in here and listened to people list of things they want

-more stops
-more TOD
-Focus on inner city infill

But no one listens when the experts, and they are experts, say well if you want all that then LRT to the Airport won't work, LRT to the region won't work.

What are you on right now? Are you reading what people are posting? Who says they want LRT to the airport? Who says they want LRT to the region? Everyone here has indicated what they heard at the meeting which is that the city should focus on building a network that focuses on low floor technology that has more stops. Chillax buddy.

edmonton daily photo
14-05-2009, 10:24 AM
I am saying people need to decide 1st what type of city they want to live in and then 2nd get real about what it will take to have that.

Then we need to have the courage to make it happen.

I see things being presented as fact when they are not or listening to what they just want to hear.

deedub35
14-05-2009, 10:28 AM
I am saying people need to decide 1st what type of city they want to live in and then 2nd get real about what it will take to have that.

Then we need to have the courage to make it happen.

I see things being presented as fact when they are not or listening to what they just want to hear.
Everyone here (poster or lurker) wants a LRT system that serves the entire city and does a good job of it. It's the NIMBY's that can't see the benefit.

That job falls in the hands of city council.

I have read those links the Leendert provided. I like it.

edmonton daily photo
14-05-2009, 10:30 AM
I was a huge supporter of regional rail. HUGE.

I am a bit of a rail road junkie, I also know what kind of city I want. I am excited by the ideas and the mind shift that has taken place.

but the most this forum should be at this point is very broad. and Idea based. Apart from urand focused 6 legged system and new above ground lines DT utalizing urban friend/people friendly design there isn't much more to report.

so lets not hash out facts and figures that don't really exist and lest start to do some high level planning as a group.

Lets not argue about or try to disprove that the consultant has deduced that we shouldn't put more than 3 lines in the DT tunnel. Lets start to redesign the system!

moahunter
14-05-2009, 10:31 AM
^I think a lot of people on the thread who want high floor misunderstand what is being proposed. It is not a slow tram, in traffic. This will be modern low-floor LRT in dedicated ROW. It will have the capability of carrying a high number of passengers - depending on the system, perhaps as many, or almost as many as current LRT. It will be able to travel at current LRT speeds in places (like industrial areas to Millwoods), and may even be quicker travel times for suburban residents to downtown, despite slower speeds in built up areas, due to the "express train" concept that does not need to stop everywhere (like the annoying stops on SLRT now).

The big pluses though - are much lower costs (due to stations being minimal, less intrusive right of way), much lower community impact (small stations, no big barriers / etc.), and greater flexibility (options like express trains for suburban residents, but more stations for urban residents). Just because it looks cool and stylish doesn't mean it will be slow and useless. This is about building something that rejuvenates urban areas, more and more people will be able to walk to the LRT. I'm very excited - our LRT will be brought into the 21st century, an urban train, with suburban capability (instead of the current suburban train that has had at best, mixed results in transforming urban communities).

edmonton daily photo
14-05-2009, 10:33 AM
I aqm glad that 4 of us were there.. I was concerned at first that no one was saing they went.

Medwards
14-05-2009, 10:33 AM
missed point again and again and again and again and again and again and again. never anything new out of you.

the POINT of my statement is that I do not want people to turn this into another wLRT thread. we have enough of them already. I can repeat it several times until you get it. I seem to have to repeat other points until eventually you get what I am saying.

Do you ever stop to consider for maybe a few minutes in your ad-naseum repetition of the same thing that maybe I do get it your points, but think other points outweigh your points?

... carrying on

MylesC
14-05-2009, 10:35 AM
Low-floor LRT design earns high praise from planners
By Tim Cooper, The Edmonton Journal May 14, 2009 9:07 AM

An LRT design popular in Europe was put forward as the best way to develop future transit in Edmonton during a public presentation Wednesday at MacEwan College.

Representatives from independent transport advisor Steer Davies Gleave told an audience of 75 people that low-floor LRT systems used in Dublin, Ireland, and Montpellier, France may be the most efficient and cost-effective way to achieve the city's vision of a more compact, transit-friendly urban core.

"I think people should be excited," said Brian Latte, manager of transportation planning in Edmonton. "I've been excited for quite some time."

Complete story at the Edmonton Journal (http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Life/floor+design+earns+high+praise+from+planners/1595106/story.html)

edmonton daily photo
14-05-2009, 10:35 AM
^I think a lot of people on the thread who want high floor misunderstand what is being proposed. It is not a slow tram, in traffic. This will be modern low-floor in dedicated ROW. It will have the capability of carrying a high number of passengers - depending on the system, perhaps as many, or almost as many as current LRT. It will be able to travel at current LRT speeds in places (like industrial areas to Millwoods), and may even be faster for suburban areas, even with slower speeds in built up areas, due to the "express train" cocncept that does not need to stop everywhere (like the annoying stops on SLRT now).

The big plus though - are much lower costs (due to stains being minimal, less intrusive right of way), much lower community impact (small stations, no big barriers / etc.), and greater flexibility (options like express trains for suburban residents, but more stations for urban residents). Just because it looks cool and stylish, doesn't mean it will be slow and useless, this is about building something that rejuvenates urban areas. I'm very excited - our LRT will be brought into the 21st century, an urban train, with suburban capability (instead of the current suburban train that has had at best, mixed results in transforming urban communities).


I'm just want to be clear there was no station hopping or express train discussed.

A train running on the line would hit every stop.

grish
14-05-2009, 10:37 AM
Do you ever stop to consider for maybe a few minutes in your ad-naseum repetition of the same thing that maybe I do get it your points, but think other points outweigh your points?

... carrying on

i've considered it, but your posts prove to me each time that you simply need to be retold things until you actually read and reply to what's written, not what's on your mind.

in this thread, my post was to redirect it back on topic of overall LRT planning rather than which wLRT was better, while you took the opportunity to post to attack my opinions. notice the difference?

back on topic, please.

MrOilers
14-05-2009, 10:39 AM
So... if this low-floor plan came to fruition, would the North end of the city have 2 high-floor lines and South only have 1?

That would be very awkward for riders, would it not?

Leendert
14-05-2009, 10:41 AM
I'm just want to be clear there was no station hopping or express train discussed.

A train running on the line would hit every stop.

It was a high-level concept plan, a broad vision. Specific details like suburban express trains were neither explicitly dismissed or suggested by the city or the consultant :smt117

deedub35
14-05-2009, 10:45 AM
So... if this low-floor plan came to fruition, would the North end of the city have 2 high-floor lines and South only have 1?

That would be very awkward for riders, would it not?
The high floor LRT component would be a "Y". One possible scenario would be that trains leaving Century Park would alternate their end destination as either NAIT or Gorman. If trains are leaving every 2.5 minutes then the wait won't be long and the trains in each north leg would be every 5 minutes.

With an ultimate six leg system there will have to be - oh the horror - riders switching trains and even - oh the horror - riders changing platforms.

Leendert
14-05-2009, 10:46 AM
So... if this low-floor plan came to fruition, would the North end of the city have 2 high-floor lines and South only have 1?

That would be very awkward for riders, would it not?

Possibly. If there would be a south line that connects to the existing system (e.g. 87 Avenue to WEM) it could still be a high-floor vehicle.

The exact wording is (from "LRT Network Plan" http://www.edmonton.ca/transportation/200905_VehicleTechnologyReview.pdf)


A vehicle technology review was completed to provide an overview of technology options and identify the LRT vehicle style most appropriate to meet long-term transportation objectives. The review recommends:
• Using new low-floor LRT vehicles on new lines that do not connect to the existing system
• Maintaining high-floor LRT vehicle style on the existing system and the extension of those lines.

moahunter
14-05-2009, 10:47 AM
^^The point is this newer technology is more flexible, it allows from minimal, right up to full bore like current LRT. I don't know why people want to expand a system that provides less flexibility. Once high floor is out to St Albert, YEG and the upgraders, I think it will be more than busy enough for the tunnel we have. The new lines can build for a future denser Edmonton.

MrOilers
14-05-2009, 10:49 AM
At any rate, it's nice to see that maybe the policy makers in this city are starting to "get it" when it comes to improving public transportation in this city.

Medwards
14-05-2009, 10:51 AM
I really liked this graphic from the presentation. Imagine we had all this?

http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/8057/lrt23453.jpg

moahunter
14-05-2009, 10:53 AM
^it looks a bit like they stole one of your earlier ideas of East West connection down Whyte.

RTA
14-05-2009, 10:54 AM
^^The point is this newer technology is more flexible, it allows from minimal, right up to full bore like current LRT. I don't know why people want to expand a system that provides less flexibility. Once high floor is out to St Albert, YEG and the upgraders, I think it will be more than busy enough for the tunnel we have. The new lines can build for a future denser Edmonton.

Flexibility isn't always a requirement of a transportation system. This is exemplified by how fixed systems draw more riders than "flexible" bus systems.

Medwards
14-05-2009, 10:55 AM
^it looks a bit like they stole one of your earlier ideas of East West connection down Whyte.

Not sure if it was me who originally thought up that idea though

moahunter
14-05-2009, 10:56 AM
^^this will be a fixed system. But it will be a fixed system with more scope to vary in nature depending on type on the communities it goes through. It is just basically, newer better technology that is more consistent with modern urban design principles (and more cost effective to boot).

deedub35
14-05-2009, 10:59 AM
It is just basically, newer better technology that is more consistent with modern urban design principles (and more cost effective to boot).

Now let's convince the people on 102 Avenue or wherever they decide for it to go.

Leendert
14-05-2009, 11:00 AM
Regarding high-floor, the consultant brought up another point, saying that the way Edmonton builds LRT is like heavy rail. High-floor does not necessarily mean barricades, controlled crossings and grade separation like our current system has. A less infrastructure intensive high-floor design is also possible.

moahunter
14-05-2009, 11:03 AM
^True, but why build 1970's high floor (which will require ugly raised platforms) ahead of modern low floor? The current system is fine, but the tunnel will be at capacity soon (esp. as high floor expands out to St Albert, YEG, etc.), so why not use the technology available today?

At the Glenora open house, people were cautiously positive. The euro urban train model, as opposed to suburban model, resonates with people. I don't think any inner city communities will be hard to sell on this, once they see mock ups of what it will look like.

MrOilers
14-05-2009, 11:10 AM
Would the high-floor trains be faster? If they are, they might be beneficial to use in some instances over low-floor ones.

moahunter
14-05-2009, 11:20 AM
Would the high-floor trains be faster? If they are, they might be beneficial to use in some instances over low-floor ones.
Like to YEG - in theory, the top speed of current LRT could be enhanced up from 70 at the moment to over 100. I think (?) low floor tops out at about 70 - so would match the current system (although to do so, means heavy infrastrucutre).

That's the one issue I guess - how do Millwoods residents feel about a 300 or 400 passanger low floor, that runs at 70km/hr, then slows down closer in to 50 or lower? Still, with dedicated ROW, much better than current busses. And, due to the lower costs, and NIMBY removal, this train gets built, instead of remaining a distant dream. And, with more track, more options for people who use transit (like links to Whyte, or WEM via southern or northern route one day).

deedub35
14-05-2009, 11:29 AM
Like to YEG - in theory, the top speed of current LRT could be enhanced up from 70 at the moment to over 100. I think (?) low floor tops out at about 70 - so would match the current system (although to do so, means heavy infrastrucutre).

SD160 top speed is 80 km/h.

http://www.mobility.siemens.com/shared/data/pdf/sts_usa_internet/edmonton_sd160.pdf

Links to more vehicles and data sheets ...

http://www.mobility.siemens.com/usa/en/pub/products/vehicles/vehicle_lines.htm

edmonton daily photo
14-05-2009, 11:48 AM
In my opinion it is not always about speed but more convenience.

I live downtown and I have often used the Airport Express shuttle van service. Although there is a schedule, sometimes the vans don't come. A couple of times I have waited and no vans came and I had to end up taking a cab to the airport. As well, most of the times that I have been on the van, by the time the van makes it to the later hotels, it is full and the people waiting in the lobby are choked and end up taking a cab. How convenient is that? And a cab to the airport is not cheap.

For a visitor to our city, hoping on the LRT at the airport and going straight to downtown and when they leave back to the airport would be super convenient. Arguably not the quickest but there is no fuss.

I've taken the Picadilly line a couple of times to Heathrow. Yeah, not the quickest but it is virtually guaranteed to get you there with no fuss and I quite liked the scenary as the train made its way into the city or back to Heathrow.

See.. the Airport express should be reliable and maybe that needs to be looked at more so than LRT. Dedicated bus, taxi lanes. Every express airport shuttle (other than edmonton) has been in a nice big A/C Coach. with presentations on the city, Info Guides and curtious drivers. The one in Chicago even took me on a short little tour of the city and miracle mile. The cost was around 40 bucks round trip I believe. further more it droped me off at my hotels doorstep. It was way more cival than any LRT experience I have had.

the better question is why don't we have scheduled buss service out to International right now. The Airporter is HORRIBLE.

moahunter
14-05-2009, 11:51 AM
SD160 top speed is 80 km/h.

I thought the new models had a higher top speed - but I guess not. It is not as simple as the speed of the train though, as the electrical system has an impact too, I seem to remember reading that our current LRT does not run at over 70. Per those web sites though, the low floor seem to be more than capable of the speeds needed, the issue becomes then, whether or not the system will facilitate it.

edmonton daily photo
14-05-2009, 11:53 AM
It was a high-level concept plan, a broad vision. Specific details like suburban express trains were neither explicitly dismissed or suggested by the city or the consultant :smt117

I took away that the consultant did dismiss it. That would be my personal bias, and me reading between the lines.

I draw that conclusion because he talked about scheduling issues and problems that would occure, plus added infrustructure and he realted the topic back to heavy train style infrustucture.

Nor had he designed or been a part or present any system with such options. When the question was raised by an audience member i am fairley certain that he said that this model was not what he was recomending

edmonton daily photo
14-05-2009, 11:56 AM
Now let's convince the people on 102 Avenue or wherever they decide for it to go.

I live on 102 ave, and if council adopts this planning model I will go beofem them and happily say "put lrt tracks right outside my front door".

highlander
14-05-2009, 12:12 PM
High-floor LRT works well to funnel people in from the outer areas into downtown, as well as between major nodes (Coliseum, UofA, etc.). The city is large enough that we have outlying areas with enough population, and enough of these major nodes to make this viable.

Low floor works well in more inner-city, dense, and compact-designed areas, particularly for the "Hop on, hop off" aspect of it. However, as you get further out of the inner city (say, beyond the "inner ring loop"), low floor becomes less advantageous.

So you're really not saying that we're not dense enough for low floor, but that low floor has benefits that are only fully realised in denser areas, particularly those with an urban form. The other advantage of low floor, namely the cheaper stations continues no matter the density or built form.

edmonton daily photo
14-05-2009, 12:22 PM
High floor and Low floor are fully interchangable. Our current high floor trains could be designed to be more community friendly.

its the way you utalize the technology that matters.

trying to combine a commuter type system with a urban system will have mixed results. You will get the coverage but you will loose the speed and convience.

highlander
14-05-2009, 12:28 PM
^^The point is this newer technology is more flexible, it allows from minimal, right up to full bore like current LRT. I don't know why people want to expand a system that provides less flexibility. Once high floor is out to St Albert, YEG and the upgraders, I think it will be more than busy enough for the tunnel we have. The new lines can build for a future denser Edmonton.

There may be options that don't really need the kind of flexibility that low floor allows, and an 87ave WLRT is one of them. Most of the route is not urban form and will not be in the medium future. There is no real need for sub-800m stop spacing, and the flexibility of interlining with the existing line is a real asset. Imagine direct stadium->wem trains after a football game!

With a maximum of 6 station if we have the wil to stop at the henday the additional costs of highfloor will be on the order of $60m, similar in order to the cost of the inevitable underpass at university ave when there is a train each way every 2 minutes there.

deedub35
14-05-2009, 12:29 PM
High floor and Low floor are fully interchangable. Our current high floor trains could be designed to be more community friendly.

How? Same gauge track? A high floor train like our U2/SD160 running on a low floor line would require riders to climb down to the platform or jump up to board the train! Imagine low floor trains running through the downtown tunnel stopping at a station. The doors open up - oh look - concrete to my knees.

highlander
14-05-2009, 12:31 PM
I thought the new models had a higher top speed - but I guess not. It is not as simple as the speed of the train though, as the electrical system has an impact too, I seem to remember reading that our current LRT does not run at over 70. Per those web sites though, the low floor seem to be more than capable of the speeds needed, the issue becomes then, whether or not the system will facilitate it.

other cities have a faster SD, up to 110 or so if I recall correctly. I don't know if ours have limiters that could be removed, or if there's some other issue.

deedub35
14-05-2009, 12:34 PM
other cities have a faster SD, up to 110 or so if I recall correctly. I don't know if ours have limiters that could be removed, or if there's some other issue.
Could be. Perhaps the system infrastructure as well - power distribution, signal system, how many turns in the track, station spacing, etc.

highlander
14-05-2009, 12:35 PM
How? Same gauge track? A high floor train like our U2/SD160 running on a low floor line would require riders to climb down to the platform or jump up to board the train! Imagine low floor trains running through the downtown tunnel stopping at a station. The doors open up - oh look - concrete to my knees.

For a hybrid, look at the LRT prototype that ERRS runs on the high level bridge. I's high floor but has stairs for low platform access.

But other than interoperability and low-floor's option of accessible boarding at unintrusive, inexpensive stations they can essentially do the same things.

edmonton daily photo
14-05-2009, 12:35 PM
Not directly interchangeable you can't run Highfloor on a low floor system, BUT you can run high floor in the same URBAN MANOR as a low floor. You can make our existing design more user friendly by making it more community and people friendly.

This is about changing the way we Think about LRT.

Stop treating it a a heavy Rail when it's not and start intigrating it into the communities.

High Floor does not mean it HAS to be a node based commuter type system.

THe second sentance you quote explains that.

deedub35
14-05-2009, 12:40 PM
Not directly interchangeable you can't run Highfloor on a low floor system, BUT you can run high floor in the same URBAN MANOR as a low floor. You can make our existing design more user friendly by making it more community and people friendly.
Well in that case of course. Grish's 95 Street station, River Valley station, maybe a 57 Avenue station, 34 Avenue station, etc.

deedub35
14-05-2009, 12:42 PM
For a hybrid, look at the LRT prototype that ERRS runs on the high level bridge. I's high floor but has stairs for low platform access.

But other than interoperability and low-floor's option of accessible boarding at unintrusive, inexpensive stations they can essentially do the same things.
I agree that low floor is the way to go. But I don't think it is feasible to convert what we currently have to low floor - lowering stations and putting stairs in the cars.

highlander
14-05-2009, 12:46 PM
Not directly interchangeable you can't run Highfloor on a low floor system, BUT you can run high floor in the same URBAN MANOR as a low floor. You can make our existing design more user friendly by making it more community and people friendly.

This is about changing the way we Think about LRT.

Stop treating it a a heavy Rail when it's not and start intigrating it into the communities.

High Floor does not mean it HAS to be a node based commuter type system.

THe second sentance you quote explains that.

Absolutely. I'm astounded by the number of gates and flashers that someone apparently felt were necessary for SLRT, as well as the size of the stations at CP and southgate. it doesn't need to be that way - we have streets where cars travel as fast as LRT does and much more frequently and unpredictably and with occasionally intoxicated or incapable operators, but we don't have lights and barriers and walls and everything for them.

edmonton daily photo
14-05-2009, 12:50 PM
No more plastic chain!

highlander
14-05-2009, 12:51 PM
I agree that low floor is the way to go. But I don't think it is feasible to convert what we currently have to low floor - lowering stations and putting stairs in the cars.

It doesn't make sense either. There is nothing wong with the existing infrastructure, and at least on the NE and S lines there is limited opportunity for new stations whatever height the floor may be. In a Rail ROW or a high volume suburban arterial there's no community freindlyness to be gained, it's just the dollars for an extra 3 feet of concrete.

moahunter
14-05-2009, 12:53 PM
Absolutely. I'm astounded by the number of gates and flashers that someone apparently felt were necessary for SLRT, as well as the size of the stations at CP and southgate. it doesn't need to be that way - we have streets where cars travel as fast as LRT does
I had another thread which asked if our LRT was overengineered - in places, SLRT is. I think of all the barriers and similar around Belgravia and South Campus - it seems way overboard, given the train seems to putter along at about 30km/hr around here. If it was going 70 (which it might closer to Century Park), then fine, but the other bits are over the top.

I don't think existing high floor is going to change though - there is no need to. The new system will be separate, which opens up more vendors to tender also.

edmonton daily photo
14-05-2009, 12:55 PM
^ You are and were right I believe.

I had just never seen a High Floor system engineered like a low floor system.
I agree it's not as friendly, but it can be done.

edmonton daily photo
14-05-2009, 12:57 PM
Well in that case of course. Grish's 95 Street station, River Valley station, maybe a 57 Avenue station, 34 Avenue station, etc.

NOW THOSE are awesome ideas.. ;-)

I think we are getting it!

grish
14-05-2009, 01:03 PM
Well in that case of course. Grish's 95 Street station, River Valley station, maybe a 57 Avenue station, 34 Avenue station, etc.

awesome! now it has been officially "talked about" which is one step away from "shovel ready":smt041:smt062

edmonton daily photo
14-05-2009, 01:07 PM
o grish...

lat
14-05-2009, 01:19 PM
See.. the Airport express should be reliable and maybe that needs to be looked at more so than LRT. Dedicated bus, taxi lanes. Every express airport shuttle (other than edmonton) has been in a nice big A/C Coach. with presentations on the city, Info Guides and curtious drivers. The one in Chicago even took me on a short little tour of the city and miracle mile. The cost was around 40 bucks round trip I believe. further more it droped me off at my hotels doorstep. It was way more cival than any LRT experience I have had.

the better question is why don't we have scheduled buss service out to International right now. The Airporter is HORRIBLE.

Set up a shuttle bus from Century Park station to the airport. Problem solved. Ideally, the LRT will make its way to the airport. In the meantime, this will work... not perfect, but it will work.

highlander
14-05-2009, 01:21 PM
I had another thread which asked if our LRT was overengineered - in places, SLRT is. I think of all the barriers and similar around Belgravia and South Campus - it seems way overboard, given the train seems to putter along at about 30km/hr around here. If it was going 70 (which it might closer to Century Park), then fine, but the other bits are over the top.

I don't think existing high floor is going to change though - there is no need to. The new system will be separate, which opens up more vendors to tender also.

Here on the original high floor, protection for pedestrians consists of a bell and 'stop here' painted in yellow on the sidewalk. You'ld think that the more literate population near the university could figure it out if we can.

I'm not sure if the separate system factor is a benefit when procuring trains. There's no reason why the recent LRV orders had to be siemens - they can't couple and the track and caternary are standard - but we went with them anyways. There may be more manufacturers for low floor, though, as it's the more common technology, at least for stock vehicles.

RichardS
14-05-2009, 01:24 PM
High floor and Low floor are fully interchangable. Our current high floor trains could be designed to be more community friendly.

its the way you utalize the technology that matters.

(...).

FINALLY

It took over 90 posts for this to get out, but FINALLY.

That was the whole thing behind my dismay at the 1970's comment. It is not the tool as much as how you utlize it. High floor, low floor, who gives a rat's ahem.

This orgy over low floor got nauseating at other forums I've attended. It is not the lower floors, but how the system itself is integrated into the overall city. From station design to route planning...think of it as a transformational project that actually integrates people into the mix and not some glorified express bus between a mall and a university, while avoiding options where people actually, oh I don't know, live.

It is more than a line on onion paper.

...and yes, I understood immediately what you meant by "interchangable".

edmonton daily photo
14-05-2009, 01:26 PM
Maybe.. I guess the point is Airline Travel and LRT travel with bags and and stairs and lare amounts of people and cars that aren't designed to deal with luggage is not that fantastic..

THe consaltant talked to me about a USA city that just did this (which one escapes me) and they found out the the majority of people who used the line were people who worked at the airport, not travelers.

If you go to O'hare in chicago or SFO you do see people use the L Train and BART but if you think of the volum,e that these airports deal in the amount of people you see use this services is SMALL. No remeber we are talking relative terms.

20 Million people have two options.. 2 Million choose option a) (LRT) wow great 2 million trips thats AMAZING,

BUT

18 Million are still using other option B) which could be anything.

edmonton daily photo
14-05-2009, 01:29 PM
FINALLY

It took over 90 posts for this to get out, but FINALLY.

That was the whole thing behind my dismay at the 1970's comment. It is not the tool as much as how you utlize it. High floor, low floor, who gives a rat's ahem.

This orgy over low floor got nauseating at other forums I've attended. It is not the lower floors, but how the system itself is integrated into the overall city. From station design to route planning...think of it as a transformational project that actually integrates people into the mix and not some glorified express bus between a mall and a university, while avoiding options where people actually, oh I don't know, live.

It is more than a line on onion paper.

...and yes, I understood immediately what you meant by "interchangable".

I don't think you can dispute that low floor is much more friendly, it's also cheaper as you don't need the large platforms with ramps and such.

THere is something about have a veh windows at eyeish level and seeing the life inside the veh that makes it human scale, Unlike Highfloor where you stand nect to steel wheels and metal train casing.

We mostlikley designed LRT to mirror Heavy Rail because the livery itself Mirrors heavy rail.

Medwards
14-05-2009, 01:31 PM
FINALLY

It took over 90 posts for this to get out, but FINALLY.

That was the whole thing behind my dismay at the 1970's comment. It is not the tool as much as how you utlize it. High floor, low floor, who gives a rat's ahem.

This orgy over low floor got nauseating at other forums I've attended. It is not the lower floors, but how the system itself is integrated into the overall city. From station design to route planning...think of it as a transformational project that actually integrates people into the mix and not some glorified express bus between a mall and a university, while avoiding options where people actually, oh I don't know, live.

It is more than a line on onion paper.

...and yes, I understood immediately what you meant by "interchangable".

I've only being saying this to moahunter for 4 months now?

edmonton daily photo
14-05-2009, 01:32 PM
We Like RichardS

RichardS
14-05-2009, 01:32 PM
Finally I want to speak about a train to the airport....

I don't agree with this,not because it wouldn't work, but because there are few LRT connections to an airport i would ever use.

Most connections are slow and akward. (i am going to be reamed out for this).
Express Coaches are much more efficient and enjoyable than Airport LRT.

(...)

Almost everytime I travel now I take express motor coaches with point to point drop offs, or I split cabs with strangers. LRT is one part of an overall transit masterplan, but not the solution for everything. Our existing line has 5 million lines and is somehwere arounf 10 km long I believe... The international had 5-7 million passangers. even if ridership matched passanger levels we are building 20 some KM of track to double our LRT ridership at a HUGE cost, where we could build half of that within the city, get the same results AND spur developement within the city.

Anyways.. Like I said I expect to be raked over the coals for that one.


I won't rake you over the coals, but I do disagree with express coaches being "better".

Gateway seems to be in a position to never ever ever be anything more than it is today...a stop light ridden ugly corridor. Why? It would cost an arm, a leg, a firstborn, a secondborn, your hot cousin, and a partridge ina pear tree to get the interchanges in place...and even if this was underway it would take 2-3 generations at Edmonton speed to get there.

LRT not only would provide more expedient access, but cheaper access for most folks to our major nodes, and hotel nodes. We could design our hotel clusters around a stop, and we have even more downtown that would connect. This is a part of that integrated "smart design" people talk about...

Yes, it isn't the silver bullet, but it will be far cheaper to construct this than re-do Gateway/Cal Trail.

Otherwise, your "express coach" won't accomplish much.

...at least, IMO.

moahunter
14-05-2009, 01:39 PM
I don't think you can dispute that low floor is much more friendly, it's also cheaper as you don't need the large platforms with ramps and such.

THere is something about have a veh windows at eyeish level and seeing the life inside the veh that makes it human scale, Unlike Highfloor where you stand nect to steel wheels and metal train casing.

We mostlikley designed LRT to mirror Heavy Rail because the livery itself Mirrors heavy rail.
I think that's right. Basically, low floor is simply an improved technology that is more human scale. Could it have been done human scale with high floor down 102? I don't know - you only have to look at the ugly "step ups" at fort edmonton park for trams, that would never meet todays standards for disabled or similar to see it wouldn't be "easy". It seems to me, high floor keeps getting engineered "up" for a reason, whereas low floor is from the outset, designed to enable minimalist solutions.

Like it or not, high floor LRT has an image problem in Edmonton, and that is partly a result of the way it has been implemented, but partly a limitation of the technology itself. When people think high floor, they think the barriers that SLRT has (which are hard to understand in places, given the low speed of parts of this line). No inner city community wants that within the neighborhood, and while one could argue forever that "high floor" could maybe have been done in a more human way, the reality is, in Edmonton, is wasn't, and that image cannot be overcome now, esp. not when people see, and want, the sexy low floor euro option. Neighborhoods really would look more modern, with more modern trains, and low ground level stations instead of old fashioned commuter train step ups.

RichardS
14-05-2009, 01:40 PM
I don't think you can dispute that low floor is much more friendly, it's also cheaper as you don't need the large platforms with ramps and such.

THere is something about have a veh windows at eyeish level and seeing the life inside the veh that makes it human scale, Unlike Highfloor where you stand nect to steel wheels and metal train casing.

We mostlikley designed LRT to mirror Heavy Rail because the livery itself Mirrors heavy rail.

Maybe...I think we designed LRT to mirror heavy rail becasue that is all people knew, and the fact it paralleled the CN line initialy probably didn't help.

Older LRT plans did integrate communities further on, but again, many lines followed heavy rail's ROW's.

However, I do not think that low vs high and expending $$$ on a completely different technology needs to be al about eye level visibilty. Who cares there. I don't see people in a bus...but that doesn't make me think that the bus is "unfriendly".

The only benefit I see is in the station design. OK, so let's make sure, regardless of high vs low floor, that the stations are designed correctly. Get the routes into neighborhoods that make sense. Integrate the station into it. Simple. We don't need to over-engineer this and plan to study a plan that planned the study's planning session here...

RichardS
14-05-2009, 01:44 PM
(...)
Like it or not, high floor LRT has an image problem in Edmonton, and that is partly a result of the way it has been implemented, but partly a limitation of the technology itself. When people think high floor, they think the barriers that SLRT has. No inner city community wants that within the neighborhood, and while one could argue forever that "high floor" could maybe have done in a more human way, the reality is, in Edmonton, is wasn't, and that image cannot be overcome now.

Seriously? I am assuming you are speaking anecdotally...

So, anecdotally in reply, I think high floor vs low floor is bunk. Trains are trains. Noise is noise. Station traffic is station traffic.

The "image" problem is that the LRT, for many years, DIDN'T GO ANYWHERE. We made it a destination system (Coliseum, Stadium, University) and then made you take circuitous bus routes or park and rides just to get on the thing.

Implementation vs technology/human feel.

I am just trying to get to what the real business benefit of changing technology when we haven’t bothered to use what we have correctly. What truly is the root cause, and I will bet you bottom dollar it isn’t high floors. ;)

edmonton daily photo
14-05-2009, 01:44 PM
I won't rake you over the coals, but I do disagree with express coaches being "better".

Gateway seems to be in a position to never ever ever be anything more than it is today...a stop light ridden ugly corridor. Why? It would cost an arm, a leg, a firstborn, a secondborn, your hot cousin, and a partridge ina pear tree to get the interchanges in place...and even if this was underway it would take 2-3 generations at Edmonton speed to get there.

LRT not only would provide more expedient access, but cheaper access for most folks to our major nodes, and hotel nodes. We could design our hotel clusters around a stop, and we have even more downtown that would connect. This is a part of that integrated "smart design" people talk about...

Yes, it isn't the silver bullet, but it will be far cheaper to construct this than re-do Gateway/Cal Trail.

Otherwise, your "express coach" won't accomplish much.

...at least, IMO.

The lights on Gateway really need to be timed.. it's rather sad I agree.

RTA
14-05-2009, 01:46 PM
So you're really not saying that we're not dense enough for low floor, but that low floor has benefits that are only fully realised in denser areas, particularly those with an urban form. The other advantage of low floor, namely the cheaper stations continues no matter the density or built form.

I think you're getting what I'm saying, yes.

A low floor LRT "architecture" can still service outlying neighborhoods, but maybe not as effectively as our existing high-floor LRT with large, high-capacity stations, certainly with less "hop on, hop off" potential, but it could still be done.

On the other hand, we have an existing high-floor LRT system that caters better to the longer-distance commuter, and I think it would be a mistake to stop expanding its network.

We have the opportunity to use two technologies that work best in two specific scenarios, but from what I'm reading we're actually thinking of deprecating one of those technologies in favour of a cheaper one that will serve one scenario best and the other one "pretty ok I guess." That worries me.

edmonton daily photo
14-05-2009, 01:47 PM
Maybe...I think we designed LRT to mirror heavy rail becasue that is all people knew, and the fact it paralleled the CN line initialy probably didn't help.

Older LRT plans did integrate communities further on, but again, many lines followed heavy rail's ROW's.

However, I do not think that low vs high and expending $$$ on a completely different technology needs to be al about eye level visibilty. Who cares there. I don't see people in a bus...but that doesn't make me think that the bus is "unfriendly".

The only benefit I see is in the station design. OK, so let's make sure, regardless of high vs low floor, that the stations are designed correctly. Get the routes into neighborhoods that make sense. Integrate the station into it. Simple. We don't need to over-engineer this and plan to study a plan that planned the study's planning session here...

I would challenge you on the buss comment.. do we manufacture High Floor Busses any more? Nope they are all low floor.. and why is that?
Because they are more people friendly.

Green Grovenor
14-05-2009, 01:49 PM
That was the whole thing behind my dismay at the 1970's comment. It is not the tool as much as how you utlize it. High floor, low floor, who gives a rat's ahem.


If the tool you have is a hammer, and you want to cut a piece of wood... well, it makes more sense to go out and buy a saw.

Here's what the transportation department thinks:

"(A)n urban-style system combined with low-floor technology (offers) operational advantages. Low-floor LRT stops can be integrated with sidewalks to provide more direct connections to people and places. Because of reduced station infrastructure and a more urban operational style, right-of-way and barrier requirements are reduced. Costs to build a low-floor LRT line are comparatively less than a high-floor LRT system, primarily because there are fewer infrastructure requirements."

The form of the technology does matter. It isn't just how it is used -- although I agree that the current system could have been and should have been more trammy, even with the high floors.

edmonton daily photo
14-05-2009, 01:51 PM
I think you're getting what I'm saying, yes.

A low floor LRT "architecture" can still service outlying neighborhoods, but maybe not as effectively as our existing high-floor LRT with large, high-capacity stations, certainly with less "hop on, hop off" potential, but it could still be done.

On the other hand, we have an existing high-floor LRT system that caters better to the longer-distance commuter, and I think it would be a mistake to stop expanding its network.

We have the opportunity to use two technologies that work best in two specific scenarios, but from what I'm reading we're actually thinking of deprecating one of those technologies in favour of a cheaper one that will serve one scenario best and the other one "pretty ok I guess." That worries me.

Yep your right.. BECAUSE we will get MORE for less out of a localized urban train than we will out of a commuter train.

Surrounding area is too large and not pupulated enough. Someone made a great point on another site. Is this LRT for US or is it for the bedroom communitites. If it truley is for us, then we need to taylor it to us and the city we want to be ;-)

RichardS
14-05-2009, 01:56 PM
If the tool you have is a hammer, and you want to cut a piece of wood... well, it makes more sense to go out and buy a saw.

(...)

The form of the technology does matter. It isn't just how it is used -- although I agree that the current system could have been and should have been more trammy, even with the high floors.

Your metaphor is flawed. If you are taking a hammer to cut wood, you're pretty stupid and should take yout journeyman's ticket and eat it...or go to Canada's Worst Handyman and accept your prize.

This is not hammer vs saw. This is a circular saw vs a jig saw. Both cut wood. Circular saw is faster but a bit unweildy. Jig saw is more artistic, but slower. Utilized correctly, they both get the job done.

Your metaphor would suggest I am talking low floor LRT vs a rickshaw for mass transit...:)

moahunter
14-05-2009, 02:00 PM
^So the transportation department are lying when they say low floor makes a difference? Of course there is a cost impact, you have to "elevate" wheelchairs, seniors, deal with station height impact on the community... it is just an old fashioned way to build an inner-city transport train. Once Edmonton has built a low floor line, per the ones I have used in Europe, I guarantee, no community is going to clamour for the old high floor.

RichardS
14-05-2009, 02:01 PM
I would challenge you on the buss comment.. do we manufacture High Floor Busses any more? Nope they are all low floor.. and why is that?
Because they are more people friendly.

...but am I taking steps up to the LRT today?

Should I mention that I am a person with a walking disability...


yes, station design could be cheaper..I get that...if that is the ONLY advantage...I'm not sold yet.

Green Grovenor
14-05-2009, 02:04 PM
^ Okay, I'll go with that. Since the city is valuing "artisitic" instead of "unwieldy," it should use a jig saw. It would be silly to use a circular saw.

RichardS
14-05-2009, 02:05 PM
^So the transportation department are lying when they say low floor makes a difference? Of course there is a cost impact, you have to "elevate" wheelchairs, seniors, deal with high impact on the community... it is just an old fashioned way to build a city transport train. Once Edmonton has built a low floor line, per the ones I have used in Europe, I guarantee, not community is going to clamour for the old high floor.

Who said I called them liars?

I am looking at the overall picture. You can integrate these stations, high floor or low floor.

Sure, you can have a glorified sidewalk "train stop". I get that. So what. You still have a rail ROW.

I just want people to think on what they can do vs looking at the latest bauble and saying "ooooh preeeeeeeeeeeeeetty."

RichardS
14-05-2009, 02:06 PM
^ Okay, I'll go with that. Since the city is valuing "artisitic" instead of "unwieldy," it should use a jig saw. It would be silly to use a circular saw.


:)

highlander
14-05-2009, 03:11 PM
I'm interested to se how NLRT turns out. there's a one block bit on 105st that will be essentially the front street for severtal apartment buildings. There's no staion, but if it's done right then it's exactly what we're looking for for an example of high-floor being community friendly.

highlander
14-05-2009, 03:28 PM
[COLOR=black]Seriously? I am assuming you are speaking anecdotally...

So, anecdotally in reply, I think high floor vs low floor is bunk. Trains are trains. Noise is noise. Station traffic is station traffic.

The "image" problem is that the LRT, for many years, DIDN'T GO ANYWHERE. We made it a destination system (Coliseum, Stadium, University) and then made you take circuitous bus routes or park and rides just to get on the thing.

Implementation vs technology/human feel.

I am just trying to get to what the real business benefit of changing technology when we haven’t bothered to use what we have correctly. What truly is the root cause, and I will bet you bottom dollar it isn’t high floors. ;)

The destinations aren't a problem, and even the limited reach wasn't the problem, at least after reaching the university. The circuitous bus problem is mostly a planning issue that's not directly related to transit. We have really badly designed roads for transit, and no form of LRT will be able to be cheap enough to be extensive enough to fix the problem. Additional stations can help, but only if the road system will allow other things to change - beyond just TOD and land use. Things like the whole hub&spoke timed transfer bus system. It was great for a small city, but we've outgrown it and done right LRT of any floor height can be a tool to bring in something new.

One thing from the destination model- that desdribes our transit centres too - that needs to change is the way we place stations with respect to the destination vs the street. Look at southgate. it's ideally placed for the destination (mall) but as a result it's far from the logical transit street (51ave) and the real public pedestrian routes.

edmonton daily photo
14-05-2009, 05:45 PM
...but am I taking steps up to the LRT today?

Should I mention that I am a person with a walking disability...


yes, station design could be cheaper..I get that...if that is the ONLY advantage...I'm not sold yet.

Mechanicals are all on top of the Livery, more himan feel.
Monitary wise all teh other benifits are may by reducing LRT Associated infrustructure.

I would also assume ther is a noise reduction because the wheels are covered in a low floor system.

I would also add that what is more interesting and inviting in a retail perspective.. a Store front that is at eye level or one that is half a story off the ground.

edmonton daily photo
14-05-2009, 05:50 PM
Who said I called them liars?

I am looking at the overall picture. You can integrate these stations, high floor or low floor.

Sure, you can have a glorified sidewalk "train stop". I get that. So what. You still have a rail ROW.

I just want people to think on what they can do vs looking at the latest bauble and saying "ooooh preeeeeeeeeeeeeetty."

Yes yo have a rail ROW but you don't have a rail ROW like we know it. THere is no barrior or chain, no shale. Track is embedded in the road or maybe covered with grass. The ROW itself is embedded in the community make up not slicing through it like an Industrial Ban Saw (I thought I would keep the saw comparisons going)

Infrusture to suprt cables is slender and slight, or build into sides of buildings. Noise reduction is build into the line Vibration reduction is too.

edmonton daily photo
14-05-2009, 05:56 PM
http://www.sunloft.co.jp/gallery/lrt/photo/photo/lyon01.jpghttp://www.4rail.net/arpics/grenoble_tram1_1920.jpg

Intigrated Rail.. now THIS is the type of Rail ROW I wanna see.

jstock
14-05-2009, 06:03 PM
I really liked this graphic from the presentation. Imagine we had all this?

http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/8057/lrt23453.jpg

If they know what they are doing, that blue-green arrow better be High Platform.
The system will be completely unbalanced otherwise, and this needs to be attached to the NAIT Line

edmonton daily photo
14-05-2009, 06:07 PM
If they know what they are doing, that blue-green arrow better be High Platform.
The system will be completely unbalanced otherwise, and this needs to be attached to the NAIT Line

I think after designing a number of systems around the world.. they know what they are doing.

bicycles
14-05-2009, 06:08 PM
honestly, I hope we cut our losses with that Epcor tunnel and just start the low floor tram from above ground at Churchill and take it up to NAIT.

edmonton daily photo
14-05-2009, 06:10 PM
http://www.n-sharyo.co.jp/business/tetsudo/images/zmanira_lrt.jpg

Even when you put a mod looking High Floor LRT on a Low Impact ROW, it still has a feel about it.

How things make people FEEL is odd to talk about in North America, but it has validity.
Which train would you rather be walking next to, which one do you want going throught your neighborhood.

The Low floor feels way more human scaled.

highlander
14-05-2009, 07:51 PM
Mechanicals are all on top of the Livery, more himan feel.
Monitary wise all teh other benifits are may by reducing LRT Associated infrustructure.

I would also assume ther is a noise reduction because the wheels are covered in a low floor system.

I would also add that what is more interesting and inviting in a retail perspective.. a Store front that is at eye level or one that is half a story off the ground.

Any infrastructure you remove other than stations is either related to speed or train length, neither is directly linked to low flooor

you can skirt the bottom of high floor too, for safety, I don't think it makes a difference to noise.

highlander
14-05-2009, 07:54 PM
Yes yo have a rail ROW but you don't have a rail ROW like we know it. THere is no barrior or chain, no shale. Track is embedded in the road or maybe covered with grass. The ROW itself is embedded in the community make up not slicing through it like an Industrial Ban Saw (I thought I would keep the saw comparisons going)

Infrusture to suprt cables is slender and slight, or build into sides of buildings. Noise reduction is build into the line Vibration reduction is too.

Again, all things that you can do with high floor too.

The_Cat
14-05-2009, 08:18 PM
Here's some info on low-floor LRT:

http://www.edmonton.ca/transportation/ets/lrt_projects/lrt-network-plan.aspx

The_Cat
14-05-2009, 11:35 PM
I have a couple of questions on the low-floor LRT.

(1) Would it be compatable on high-floor LRT right-of-ways? For example, could low-floor LRT travel from the LRT storage/maintenance facility along the NE LRT tracks, then travel south on 96 Street and west onto the 102 Avenue low-floor LRT?

(2) Would the low-floor LRT tracks work well in winter weather? I think that there should be some provision for snow-clearing on the LRT tracks if there's a blizzard. Alternatively, would it be a good decision to have the tracks heated to melt the snow once it hits the tracks?

moahunter
15-05-2009, 09:43 AM
^On 1, I in the past had thought about that as a good option, but from what the City staff seemed to say at the meeting I was at, there may be no link to share storage / maintenance. I am guessing the City does not want to be "constrained" in terms of technology or design right now.

On 2, I think that's a given that it works - they get plenty of snow in Europe where these systems run. The exact method would presumably depend on who the supplier is (maybe one of, Bombardiar, Alstrom, or Siemens)

edmonton daily photo
15-05-2009, 10:34 AM
I have a couple of questions on the low-floor LRT.

(1) Would it be compatable on high-floor LRT right-of-ways? For example, could low-floor LRT travel from the LRT storage/maintenance facility along the NE LRT tracks, then travel south on 96 Street and west onto the 102 Avenue low-floor LRT?

(2) Would the low-floor LRT tracks work well in winter weather? I think that there should be some provision for snow-clearing on the LRT tracks if there's a blizzard. Alternatively, would it be a good decision to have the tracks heated to melt the snow once it hits the tracks?

So there is not diffrence between low floor track and high floor track.
Low floor LRT is in use in outher winter cities. There is no concern

deedub35
15-05-2009, 12:10 PM
Here's some info on low-floor LRT:
http://www.edmonton.ca/transportation/ets/lrt_projects/lrt-network-plan.aspx

The information from the presentation is on this page now.

jstock
15-05-2009, 12:19 PM
I think after designing a number of systems around the world.. they know what they are doing.

I still do not have an answer from anyone on this issue aside from "I hope so"...this definitely needs to be addressed!! We absolutely cannot have this High-Floor LRT system unbalanced.

moahunter
15-05-2009, 02:34 PM
^Why would it be unbalanced? There are a lot of ways it could be done. For example:

NAIT - Century Park train
NAIT - UofA train (which stops and goes back)
Gorman - Century Park train
Gorman - UofA train (which stops and goes back).

Once NAIT becomes St Albert, those stations downtown will be packed at rush hour. Until then, I'm sure the scheduling experts at the transport department can figure something out that makes sense (this stuff is a science in itself - management science).

knowitall
15-05-2009, 08:01 PM
I still do not have an answer from anyone on this issue aside from "I hope so"...this definitely needs to be addressed!! We absolutely cannot have this High-Floor LRT system unbalanced.

Not sure what you mean by "balanced". The number of legs don't really matter. The consultants have said that the downtown tunnel can accommodate up to 24 trains per direction per hour (one train every 2.5 minutes). If there are 2 legs, like today, that would mean 24 trains on each leg. If there are 4 legs, it would mean 12 trains per leg.

You could keep a 3 leg system where two of the lower demand legs have 12 trains each hour combining in the tunnel for 24 trains per hour on a higher demand leg.

It's all about ridership and travel demand. Just like buses, if there are too many passengers you put more buses per hour to accommodate demand. The design on the network is all about ridership and not about symmetry.

The_Cat
15-05-2009, 08:55 PM
I think one line that could do well (as high floor LRT) would be a line along 97 Street (along the median). I see the following design:

(1) 167 Avenue/Eaux Claires Station: The north terminus of NLRT.

(2) 153 Avenue (optional)

(3) 137 Avenue - adjacent to Northgate/North Town Mall

(4) 127 Avenue/Yellowhead Trail.

(5) 118 Avenue

(6) The LRT could then head south, either to NAIT Station (along Princess Elizabeth Avenue) or to downtown (along 101 Street to a destination like MacEwan Station).

highlander
15-05-2009, 08:58 PM
Only months ago the downtown tunnel was an asset that needed to be leveraged for more lines. Now it's a millstone that we can't wait to get rid of. The speed of the change and the lack of clear reasoning makes me think that either there's a hidden agenda (the laurier heights conspiricy) or this expert is more of a salesman than a consultant.

highlander
15-05-2009, 09:02 PM
I think one line that could do well (as high floor LRT) would be a line along 97 Street (along the median). I see the following design:

(1) 167 Avenue/Eaux Claires Station: The north terminus of NLRT.

(2) 153 Avenue (optional)

(3) 137 Avenue - adjacent to Northgate/North Town Mall

(4) 127 Avenue/Yellowhead Trail.

(5) 118 Avenue

(6) The LRT could then head south, either to NAIT Station (along Princess Elizabeth Avenue) or to downtown (along 101 Street to a destination like MacEwan Station).

Agreed, although I don't think that there's any question of NLRT extensions not being high-floor. The possibility of TWO lines from the new portal not only raises serious capacity questions, but it also makes the assymetry more severe.

edmonton daily photo
15-05-2009, 09:44 PM
Only months ago the downtown tunnel was an asset that needed to be leveraged for more lines. Now it's a millstone that we can't wait to get rid of. The speed of the change and the lack of clear reasoning makes me think that either there's a hidden agenda (the laurier heights conspiricy) or this expert is more of a salesman than a consultant.

It is an asset and it has been leveraged, but it will be at capacity. There is nothing left.

edmonton daily photo
15-05-2009, 09:47 PM
honestly, I hope we cut our losses with that Epcor tunnel and just start the low floor tram from above ground at Churchill and take it up to NAIT.

It was communocated that the existing 3 legs are commited to high floor.

The_Cat
15-05-2009, 09:51 PM
I guess the toughest question, Highlander, is where the 97 Street line will end up downtown. Perhaps one possibility might be continuing down Princess Elizabeth Avenue and going south on 109 Street (median), where it could meet up with 102 Avenue. There may be some issues with property acquisition though.

lat
15-05-2009, 10:15 PM
Mechanicals are all on top of the Livery, more himan feel.
Monitary wise all teh other benifits are may by reducing LRT Associated infrustructure.

I would also assume ther is a noise reduction because the wheels are covered in a low floor system....

ok, I don't pretend to be a perfect speller either, but would it be possible to do a bit of a spell check before posting? It gets to the point where the meaning of the post gets hard to understand!

edmonton daily photo
15-05-2009, 10:25 PM
sorry i do the best i can... no spell check built into this site.

thats why i deal in photos...

http://www.lightrailnow.org/images02/mar-lrt-curve-historic-bldg-2007x_Christoph-Groneck.jpghttp://www.lightrailnow.org/images02/lm-lrt-map-20071100_Tramway-du-Mans.jpglook more right hand turns

Hilman
15-05-2009, 10:35 PM
^ The Google Chrome browser has a built in spell checker. Your welcome :p

http://www.google.com/chrome

noodle
15-05-2009, 10:38 PM
^ The Google Chrome browser has a built in spell checker. Your welcome :p

http://www.google.com/chrome

Evidently no grammar checker however, as it's "You're welcome." Firefox and Safari also both provide spellcheck services as well.

Hilman
15-05-2009, 10:45 PM
Touche Noodle, I guess I should stick to posting during the day when I am more awake.

Four hours until my flight to Vegas, have a good week peeps.

highlander
15-05-2009, 10:48 PM
It is an asset and it has been leveraged, but it will be at capacity. There is nothing left.

No, it hasn't. There's room for one more off the south/west end. If there's room for two legs off one end, there's room for two on the other.

highlander
15-05-2009, 10:52 PM
I guess the toughest question, Highlander, is where the 97 Street line will end up downtown. Perhaps one possibility might be continuing down Princess Elizabeth Avenue and going south on 109 Street (median), where it could meet up with 102 Avenue. There may be some issues with property acquisition though.

The Nait line should be the north central line which should be the 97st line, at least north of the yellowhead. 107st may be virtually carless if the airport closes, 109 is extended and the 107 intersection is closed for good.

Since we will have more legs than 4 we can consider things like st' Albert being the #2 low floor leg after millwoods. 104ave or similar West of downtown and then the 121st ROW north to the yellowhead and the 142st row beyond.

edmonton daily photo
16-05-2009, 12:27 AM
If you fill up the tunnel; to capacity now in 2010, what do you do in 2040 when the city is 50% larger.

plus the 4th line would have to use the existing high floor tech. I want to see the community friendly low floor tech used

The_Cat
16-05-2009, 12:30 AM
The Nait line should be the north central line which should be the 97st line, at least north of the yellowhead. 107st may be virtually carless if the airport closes, 109 is extended and the 107 intersection is closed for good.

Since we will have more legs than 4 we can consider things like st' Albert being the #2 low floor leg after millwoods. 104ave or similar West of downtown and then the 121st ROW north to the yellowhead and the 142st row beyond.

I agree Highlander, looking at the LRT line to NAIT, I think it would make more sense to extend it north. North LRT would be great for communities north of the tracks.

I also think, low floor or high floor, LRT to Mill Woods could be a challenge with respect to the route chosen across the North Saskatchewan River.

edmonton daily photo
16-05-2009, 12:40 AM
The Planners did say something about the NE and studying 2 lines.. they didn't go into it and i didn't really understand what she was talking about.

knowitall
16-05-2009, 11:39 AM
No, it hasn't. There's room for one more off the south/west end. If there's room for two legs off one end, there's room for two on the other.

"room" is dependant on number of trains needed to serve the ultimate ridership. If 24 trains per hour per direction is the tunnel capacity, you can feed 24 legs off the tunnel if you only want one one train per hour per leg!

knowitall
16-05-2009, 11:41 AM
The Planners did say something about the NE and studying 2 lines.. they didn't go into it and i didn't really understand what she was talking about.

She was talking about the north/northwest line to Nait and St. Albert. The ridership in that direction may justify 2 lines. Maybe even one high floor and one low floor. Let's see what the NW study come up with towards the end of the year.

edmonton daily photo
16-05-2009, 12:41 PM
"room" is dependant on number of trains needed to serve the ultimate ridership. If 24 trains per hour per direction is the tunnel capacity, you can feed 24 legs off the tunnel if you only want one one train per hour per leg!

Good Discription...

then add to that the fact that this setup may be ideal for the city today, but will it be ideal for the city in 30 years. You build all this infrustructure and invest tonnes of money, but you forget to build in flexability.

The_Cat
16-05-2009, 05:10 PM
I see merit in the consultant's report that the maximum that the tunnel could accommodate is 24 trains per hour, or one every 2.5 minutes. That translates to two lines with a frequency of five minutes (rush hour). Highlander, I agree that there is room for another high-floor line in South or West Edmonton. This could potentially be the 87 Avenue line to WEM/Lewis Estates.

While I'll agree that there should be a downtown line of some kind to WEM, I think that a line from Health Sciences to WEM (along 87 Avenue) could take off a lot of gridlock on SW Edmonton Roads.

kkozoriz
16-05-2009, 05:37 PM
It makes no sense to me to have a line end downtown in the tunnel.

Let's have one line - NAIT (Castle Downs/St.Albert) -> Century Park and another Clareview(Gorman) ->Lewis Estates.

Gives maximum coverage to the downtown/university section. Links the major pose-secondary institutions on one system.

A low floor system would be great for JP -> Oliver -> Downtown.

Start it as a Millwoods line via Bonnie Doon and then continue down 102 ave once you get downtown.

I really should get a map together. Anyone got some time to lend me?

edmonton daily photo
16-05-2009, 06:04 PM
I see merit in the consultant's report that the maximum that the tunnel could accommodate is 24 trains per hour, or one every 2.5 minutes. That translates to two lines with a frequency of five minutes (rush hour). Highlander, I agree that there is room for another high-floor line in South or West Edmonton. This could potentially be the 87 Avenue line to WEM/Lewis Estates.

While I'll agree that there should be a downtown line of some kind to WEM, I think that a line from Health Sciences to WEM (along 87 Avenue) could take off a lot of gridlock on SW Edmonton Roads.

If you do this.. You limit the 4 legs to be forever capped at a frequancy of 5 min. This may be fine for now, but you need to plan for decades into the future as well..

By putting the 3 lines DT at grade you leave room in the tunnel for growth.

Further to that, at the cost you will pay for the 87th route to West Ed you could have a lot more track done at above grade.

Lastly no one wants the obtrusive high floor system in their commuinty. Even Green Grovner may be able to accept the new low floor system.

I just don't see a fouth tunnel leg happening, but that is my take on it.

Medwards
16-05-2009, 06:38 PM
24 tunnels per hour per direction is the current limitation with current infrastructure. Lets not forget that with more advanced signally and short blocks, we could probably move that time down from 180 seconds to about 90 seconds per train, or 40 trains per hour per direction.

edmonton daily photo
16-05-2009, 07:35 PM
Fair enough.. then you still have the fact that anything going through the tunnels would be HIgh Floor. WHich thus far most communities resit.

The_Cat
16-05-2009, 09:08 PM
I still think that the downtown/university tunnel is probably one of the greatest things about our LRT. Back in the old days before the University Station, it was a 15+ minute trip through the river valley, and probably an even longer trip between North Edmonton and the University. Could you imagine traffic on Jasper if there wasn't the LRT tunnel? We have to remember that the tunnel was built 30 years ago, and that it has probably taken on 3 times the capacity since it was first opened (from 20,000 to 60,000 passengers per day).

The best part about the LRT tunnel is that it does not compete with traffic downtown. With LRT picking up about 20,000-25,000 riders during rush hour, it probably rivals the Whitemud or Yellowhead Trail in terms of traffic volume.

I agree, the next lines for downtown will have to be at grade (say at 102 Avenue going west and SE). If the lines run along 102 Avenue, there should be stops at City Centre (100A Street, 102 Street), 104 Street and 107 Street.

edmonton daily photo
16-05-2009, 09:11 PM
I still think that the downtown/university tunnel is probably one of the greatest things about our LRT. Back in the old days before the University Station, it was a 15+ minute trip through the river valley, and probably an even longer trip between North Edmonton and the University. Could you imagine traffic on Jasper if there wasn't the LRT tunnel? We have to remember that the tunnel was built 30 years ago, and that it has probably taken on 3 times the capacity since it was first opened (from 20,000 to 60,000 passengers per day).

The best part about the LRT tunnel is that it does not compete with traffic downtown. With LRT picking up about 20,000-25,000 riders during rush hour, it probably rivals the Whitemud or Yellowhead Trail in terms of traffic volume.

I agree, the next lines for downtown will have to be at grade (say at 102 Avenue going west and SE). If the lines run along 102 Avenue, there should be stops at City Centre (100A Street, 102 Street), 104 Street and 107 Street.

THe best thin is the above grade lines WON't Fight with trafic. LRT cars will have veh priorety. Cars will have to stop for them not vica versa

etownboarder
16-05-2009, 09:12 PM
I don't know if the city would be stupid enough to put a line at grade through the core... I mean, even Calgary realizes they made a HUGE mistake having their LRT at grade through their downtown. In fact, I'm sure within the next 20 years, Calgary will have an underground LRT system in their downtown.

edmonton daily photo
16-05-2009, 09:35 PM
I don't know if the city would be stupid enough to put a line at grade through the core... I mean, even Calgary realizes they made a HUGE mistake having their LRT at grade through their downtown. In fact, I'm sure within the next 20 years, Calgary will have an underground LRT system in their downtown.

Calgary's system carries 500,000 Pasangers a day. I call that a HUGE success

Where Calgary's system fails is that LRT has the same priorety as cars. THere is no way that 5 cars PACKed with people should be sitting at traffic lights.

Their lines are also poorly intigrated with communities. They have a huge amount of park and ride, and little chance for TOD around many of their stations.

etownboarder
16-05-2009, 10:06 PM
I never said the C-Train wasn't a success... But it is far from efficient in the core.

The_Cat
16-05-2009, 10:08 PM
I don't know if the city would be stupid enough to put a line at grade through the core... I mean, even Calgary realizes they made a HUGE mistake having their LRT at grade through their downtown. In fact, I'm sure within the next 20 years, Calgary will have an underground LRT system in their downtown.

In some respects, I think the city should be wary of an at-grade line downtown. I think there should be an LRT tunnel going underneath 109 Street along 102 Avenue. There would be a lot of congestion at that intersection if the LRT was above grade.

highlander
16-05-2009, 10:27 PM
A tram- type line with shorter vehicles and less than 100% priority at the major streets (109, 101, maybe 97) would be just fine.

Thanks to our short E-W blocks I don't think that any high-capacity LRT will work on the surface that way. A N-S line might be possible thanks to the longer blocks.

highlander
16-05-2009, 10:33 PM
Calgary's system carries 500,000 Pasangers a day. I call that a HUGE success

Where Calgary's system fails is that LRT has the same priorety as cars. THere is no way that 5 cars PACKed with people should be sitting at traffic lights.

Their lines are also poorly intigrated with communities. They have a huge amount of park and ride, and little chance for TOD around many of their stations.

They get 300,000 per day, according to the most recent guesstimates.

They also don't run 5 car trains - they are only capable of 3, and are in the process of upgrading for 4.

Medwards
16-05-2009, 10:42 PM
Calgary's system carries 500,000 Pasangers a day. I call that a HUGE success


care to prove this fact?




Average number of boarding passengers per day: (2006) 248,200

Weekday ridership per CTrain line:
South - 86,100
Northwest - 80,400
Northeast - 58,900
Downtown (free fare zone) - 22,800

http://www.calgarytransit.com/html/technical_information.html

Medwards
16-05-2009, 10:46 PM
success? We are pretty close to Calgary in terms of ridership / km

44.9 km Calgary 248,000 = 5511.1

15.2 km Edmonton 50,000 = 3333.3

Imagine if our LRT actually went somewhere besides just uofa and downtown!

edmonton daily photo
17-05-2009, 12:35 AM
care to prove this fact?

http://www.calgarytransit.com/html/technical_information.html


Opps you are right.. Calgary TRANSIT moves 500,000 a day. my bad

mick
17-05-2009, 01:20 PM
There is simply no way that the city should abandon further additions to the current LRT system without first fully leveraging the downtown tunnel and the massive amounts of money and time invested in it. From everything I've read, to fully leverage that tunnel, we need two lines (i.e. NELRT - SWLRT; Nait - SELRT; or Nait - WLRT) running through it, which means four legs (i.e. 2 off each end). By my reckoning, this means that either SELRT or WLRT must connect to the current infrastructure at the south/western end. The city needs to choose one and move forward. Once that is done, I'm all for integrating a low floor system to better serve inner city neighbourhoods. Abandoning the current LRT model without maximizng our huge investment smacks of trendiness. Additionally, many of the community splitting problems attributed to the current LRT can be mitigated by better ROW choice and design (McKernan is a step in the right direction).

moahunter
17-05-2009, 01:28 PM
I don't know if the city would be stupid enough to put a line at grade through the core... I mean, even Calgary realizes they made a HUGE mistake having their LRT at grade through their downtown.
I disagree. Yes, Calgary's downtown is a bit of a mess to traverse, but it is also due to the regular train that cuts through it.

I think at grade up 102 would be fine right through downtown, with pedway links to the Jasper stations. Our two main streets for traffic, Jasper and 104 would not be effected, and the nature of the type of system, means that pedestrians will be able to get through fine. In fact, done right, this could create a pretty pedeistrian type mall / street right through downtown, something we lack. At some point there is going to have to be another line through downtown - IMO it just makes sense to use the realitivley quiet 102 for this purpose.

The_Cat
17-05-2009, 02:42 PM
I disagree. Yes, Calgary's downtown is a bit of a mess to traverse, but it is also due to the regular train that cuts through it.

I think at grade up 102 would be fine right through downtown, with pedway links to the Jasper stations. Our two main streets for traffic, Jasper and 104 would not be effected, and the nature of the type of system, means that pedestrians will be able to get through fine. In fact, done right, this could create a pretty pedeistrian type mall / street right through downtown, something we lack. At some point there is going to have to be another line through downtown - IMO it just makes sense to use the realitivley quiet 102 for this purpose.

I think something like this could do wonders for 102 Avenue, especially between 104 and 109 Street. Not to mention that the line is probably two blocks from most places downtown.

lat
17-05-2009, 04:05 PM
^ I agree... This feels like a natural to me.

jstock
17-05-2009, 05:10 PM
^Why would it be unbalanced? There are a lot of ways it could be done. For example:

NAIT - Century Park train
NAIT - UofA train (which stops and goes back)
Gorman - Century Park train
Gorman - UofA train (which stops and goes back).

Once NAIT becomes St Albert, those stations downtown will be packed at rush hour. Until then, I'm sure the scheduling experts at the transport department can figure something out that makes sense (this stuff is a science in itself - management science).

That's what I'm talking about. Will the trains stop and come back? If not, then the south leg will get double the frequency that Nait-Churchill and Churchill-Gorman get.

The_Cat
17-05-2009, 08:46 PM
I think it would be interesting to see how fast the low-floor LRT could get built. Looking at the rate at which the LRT is getting built in South Edmonton, I could see less than two years for a line like 97 Street (no moving of utilities and no land acquisition).

etownboarder
17-05-2009, 08:59 PM
The time frame at which our LRT gets built is something that really confuses me. Grenoble (I know I use this example a lot, but it's a great comparison) has built new lines with 10+ new stops in a matter of only a couple years. Yes, they use a low floor tram model, but this is exactly what Edmonton is now considering for future LRT lines. If we could build lines with the same number of stations in half the amount of time, we would still be building at 10X the rate we are now.

The_Cat
18-05-2009, 12:18 AM
I think one potential challenge could be the issue of traffic calming. If a line is built on Whyte Avenue, it may be done at the expense of parking on the street, particularly if Whyte has two lanes in each direction, along with a low-floor LRT in the middle. I think many people would support this arrangement, but I could see businesses in the area fighting the loss of metered parking, even with more passenger traffic on the low floor LRT, and the fact that many people wouldn't have to park four or five blocks away to go to the Farmers' Market or Princess Theatre.

moahunter
18-05-2009, 07:28 AM
^I really wonder if the Whyte idea is practical. Maybe as an extra line, but surely for Millwoods residents going downtown, it is both out of the way, and also, will be a slow bottleneck. Even with a dedicated ROW, I fear on whyte the train would have to go incredibly slow due to all the pedestrians, intersections, etc.

grish
18-05-2009, 07:55 AM
a possible solution that would satisfy the "unbalanced system" critics as well.

NELRT to SLRT remains unchanged.

NLRT from NAIT (extendable to St. Albert) will cross the river and split East before entering the tunnel to University

http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=edmonton&sll=49.891235,-97.15369&sspn=28.109852,79.101563&ie=UTF8&ll=53.527879,-113.5141&spn=0.003157,0.009656&t=h&z=17

to connect to existing rail row currently used by the street car. I think this slope is significant, but similar to University to Health Sciences slope. After connecting to existing rail ROW, it will go to Gateway and Whyte and continue east to Bonnie Doon and on towards S. Park. It will provide a potential St. Albert to S. Park connector and therefore major regional $$$ support. I will call this LRT line SASP LRT. SELRT will intersect this one at Bonnie Doon.

Stops on SASP will include one at approximately 107 street and 87 avenue as it comes out of the tunnel to serve all the high rises along Sask drive, the walk-ups in the area as well as 109 street shops. Next stop is at Gateway and Whyte ave or Gateway and 83 avenue +/- a block. Then a stop at Whyte and 99 street, Whyet and 92 street, Bonnie Doon (Whyte and 83 street).

SASP will go at grade on Whyte from Gateway to Bonnie Doon at the expense of curb-side parking and the median. Metered parking will be introduced on side-streets from 85 avenue to 79 avenue with exceptions for residents.

Medwards
18-05-2009, 08:26 AM
that grade would be considerably higher then 6%, and then if we want low floor lrt on whyte ave, we would have to convert all the stations downtown.

grish
18-05-2009, 08:32 AM
if this idea happens, no low floor on whyte. what was the grade on University to Health Sciences segment?

knowitall
18-05-2009, 12:44 PM
if this idea happens, no low floor on whyte. what was the grade on University to Health Sciences segment?

6%. It required some retrofitting of the LRV breaking systems before health sciences opened.

grish
18-05-2009, 01:04 PM
ok, so if this idea does take place, the cars are already configured to take the grade which will be at most 6% or less actually considering that there is a greater horizontal distance and the track will connect lower than Health Sciences in comparison.

Medwards
18-05-2009, 01:28 PM
You've studied this and confirmed the grade will be less then 6%? Can I ask how you made these calculations?

grish
18-05-2009, 01:35 PM
I used your method: given that your guesstimates are rarely correct, post the complete opposite of your pure speculation number. Plus, I have considered the horizontal distance of that segment and compared it to Health Sciences and also considered elevation. Now, how did you arrive at "significantly larger than 6%"? What was the magic paint can that you used?