Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

West LRT | Downtown to Lewis Estates | Discussion about other possible routes

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by highlander View Post
    I really like callingwood as a destination, but 170st itself is a transit hostile street. I'm not totally familiar with that part of the west end, but at least north of whitemud I prefer 178st for a tranist ROW.
    my suggestion uses the part from 95 avenue to callingwood rd. 170th there is wide enough to build LRT and not take up any lanes away and it would be able to make a turn from 95th to the west side of 170th without property acquisition. To go to the middle of 170th may also be possible. There would be three or four stops–95 ave, WEM/ MIsericordia, maybe 170th and Whitemud to catch some of the neighbourhood walk-ups, Callingwood Rd. After Callingwood rd, the last stop is near 178 street at Callingwood shopping center.

    The stop at 170th and Whitemud is an intreaguing choice. While not much in the way of residential there, there is room for some multi-level parking for a park and ride:
    http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&sourc...01929&t=h&z=16
    I had concidered 178th, but that by-passes Misericordia and Meadowlark village completely, although does serve much more of Terra Lossa and a few other condo developments along 178th. I would still prefer 170th with this scheme.
    Last edited by grish; 26-07-2010, 04:55 AM.

    Comment


    • #32
      I'd build all lines as has been proposed (perhaps Callingwood over Lewis Estates), then, if there is capacity once St Albert is on stream, add an additional line on high floor to Windermere (there are plenty of route options). We need to get LRT to as many neighborhoods as possible, and like it or not, the SW is the biggest growth area in the City right now by some margin (and one of the most difficult for autos, making it likely that LRT will be very desirable for downtown and UofA commuters just like Clareview has been).
      Last edited by moahunter; 26-07-2010, 06:33 AM.

      Comment


      • #33
        @Highlander: I did mention another drawback to using buses on heavily-traveled routes with lots of stops -- boarding and unloading passengers is much slower with a bus. LRT, with multiple doors, is much faster to board, with shorter dwell times at stations as a result. The more stations you have (and the busier the line), the bigger an advantage this is for LRT.
        Buses are never well-suited to really high-capacity routes, for this and other reasons, but the fewer the stops, the less bad buses are. And the big advantage that buses have is that they are flexible, able to move on almost any street, so a BRT/premium bus service can at least potentially take advantage of that by running from multiple points of origin to a single corridor and ultimate destination.
        If the 87 Ave route was built, you could certainly run a priority bus down SPR from JP to downtown, but it'd still take out two lanes of traffic, and still require the same priority measures as LRT, but deliver significantly poorer service, with real constraints on capacity.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by ajb View Post
          @Highlander: I did mention another drawback to using buses on heavily-traveled routes with lots of stops -- boarding and unloading passengers is much slower with a bus. LRT, with multiple doors, is much faster to board, with shorter dwell times at stations as a result. The more stations you have (and the busier the line), the bigger an advantage this is for LRT.
          Buses are never well-suited to really high-capacity routes, for this and other reasons, but the fewer the stops, the less bad buses are. And the big advantage that buses have is that they are flexible, able to move on almost any street, so a BRT/premium bus service can at least potentially take advantage of that by running from multiple points of origin to a single corridor and ultimate destination.
          If the 87 Ave route was built, you could certainly run a priority bus down SPR from JP to downtown, but it'd still take out two lanes of traffic, and still require the same priority measures as LRT, but deliver significantly poorer service, with real constraints on capacity.
          You hit the real reason that LRT is better than bus in your last sentence: Capacity. And you're right, of course, that to achieve LRT level service through an urban area does required the same priority.

          But loading isn't a significant issue for buses. The way we (and all of N America ) operate buses is similar to how streetcars used to be. But just as slow loading on streetcars has been solved for LRT, the problem has been solved, with very similar solutions, for buses. BRT buses can use off-board fare payment, just like LRT, and can have as many doors as is necessary. A 60' articulated bus with 3 big sets of doors should be able to load and unload just as fast as an LRT.

          Comment


          • #35
            On the subject of BRT, I'd like to revise my previous plan, to use BRT on 111 instead of LRT, so instead of connecting straight downtown, the line would go crosstown to Stadium, intersecting 3 LRT lines on the way.

            Comment


            • #36
              It's true that it would be possible to buy buses that make boarding faster... but since Edmonton doesn't have such buses yet, it's one more extra cost. One of the best arguments for BRT is that it can start with fairly minimal investment, and use equipment already in place. Cities like London have increasingly moved to off-board payment for buses, I suspect, because the routes in question have more than enough traffic to warrant a light or even heavy rail line, but budget, politics and logistics mean that's just not going to happen. They're stuck with trying to maximise the capacity of a bus route, and so they go for things like that.
              We were wise to learn from the examples of older, bigger cities, and to overbuild the downtown LRT line in the first place. It seemed ridiculous for decades to have a downtown tunnel that led nowhere much in either direction, but now that decision is starting to look smarter. At the same time, it's also wise not to cram too many routes into that tunnel, so that it can remain useful for as long as possible with as minimal changes and re-routings over time.
              Once their currently planned lines are built, both Edmonton and Calgary will have a mix of underground and surface lines downtown. This isn't strange -- it's pretty much what you might find in a German city of the same size, for example.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by ajb View Post
                Once their currently planned lines are built, both Edmonton and Calgary will have a mix of underground and surface lines downtown. This isn't strange -- it's pretty much what you might find in a German city of the same size, for example.
                To which German cities might you be referring?

                Comment


                • #38
                  Cologne and Hanover, for example, both have systems that combine street running in segregated rights-of-way with tunneling where needed. Slightly farther afield, Brussels and Vienna have both, in different ways, had a policy of gradually developing a line from ordinary street-running tram to "Premetro," (i.e. a tunnel for the busiest sections of tram routes), to full Metro status, as traffic warrants.
                  The Docklands Light Railway in London might be another useful parallel here -- while Tube construction has become hugely expensive and almost impossible to contemplate, the DLR has grown rapidly (and comparatively cheaply) and has been scaled up as numbers warrant.
                  The combination of the downtown tunnel and segregated street running on 102 Ave should give Edmonton all the capacity it needs for quite some time (which would not be true of the tunnel by itself, which, no matter how you re-signal it, clearly won't accommodate all six lines).

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Non of the above mentioned cities have built, are building, or propose to build a complete barrier free LRT network from one side of the city to the other that completely bisects their downtown core. Many of them have converted their tram networks into dedicated LRT ROWs. Many of them are still expanding their underground networks through the busiest parts of town.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Cured View Post
                      Non of the above mentioned cities have built, are building, or propose to build a complete barrier free LRT network from one side of the city to the other that completely bisects their downtown core. Many of them have converted their tram networks into dedicated LRT ROWs. Many of them are still expanding their underground networks through the busiest parts of town.
                      Saying "completely bisects their downtown core" makes it sound like there's going to be some notable physical barrier introduced by the 102 Ave LRT; concrete or chainlink or something. For some there might be a psychological barrier, but somehow Calgarians have been able to wrap their heads around crossing 7th Ave by foot. I hope we can rise to the challenge like they did down south...
                      I think of art, at its most significant, as a Distant Early Warning system that can always be relied on to tell the old culture what is beginning to happen to it. —Marshall McLuhan

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by ajb View Post
                        Cologne and Hanover, for example, both have systems that combine street running in segregated rights-of-way with tunneling where needed. Slightly farther afield, Brussels and Vienna have both, in different ways, had a policy of gradually developing a line from ordinary street-running tram to "Premetro," (i.e. a tunnel for the busiest sections of tram routes), to full Metro status, as traffic warrants.
                        The Docklands Light Railway in London might be another useful parallel here -- while Tube construction has become hugely expensive and almost impossible to contemplate, the DLR has grown rapidly (and comparatively cheaply) and has been scaled up as numbers warrant.
                        The combination of the downtown tunnel and segregated street running on 102 Ave should give Edmonton all the capacity it needs for quite some time (which would not be true of the tunnel by itself, which, no matter how you re-signal it, clearly won't accommodate all six lines).
                        Not sure London is a good example. Many new tube lines have opened over the years. London is also building the CDN $32 billion Crossrail - deep tube tunnels under London that will be owned by Transport for London, but mainline National Rail trains will run through them as frequently as every 2 minutes.

                        Not to mention High Speed 1 - which not only carries the 320km/h running Eurostars and high-speed South Kent services, but also a non-stop shuttle to Stratford for the Olympics - again running in deep level tube tunnels under London (these owned by Network Rail).

                        As for the DLR, it was inadequate for the demand, resulting in the late 1990s opening of the Jubilee Line extension through the docklands.

                        While heavy rail metro is expensive to build, it carries an awful lot of peeple. London's Northern Line, the busiest, carries over 750,000 people on an average day.
                        ETS Trolley Buses - 1939 to 2010 - R.I.P.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          @Cured: well, the thing about "completely bisects the downtown core" is that that means about ten blocks. You'll find lots of places in those cities of comparable density and traffic to downtown Edmonton that do in fact have in-street light rail separated from traffic.
                          @lightrail: Crossrail has been under discussion for 20 years, and has been on and off for most of that time (kind of like the upgrade to the North-South commuter rail tunnel improvements, which was originally branded "Thameslink 2000," when it, too, was proposed in 1991, and was supposed to be ready around 2000, but is only getting started properly now). It's great that both projects are finally moving forward, but London needed them 20 years ago, to say nothing of the proposed Crossrail Line 2 (to relieve the Victoria Line), also urgently needed, but probably decades away. HS1 also took almost 20 years to plan and build.
                          In terms of new Tube lines, the only two since WWII have been the Victoria Line (built in the 1960's), and the Jubilee Line (partly built in the '70s, and then extended in a totally new direction in the late '90s at staggering expense).
                          London _has_ kept building (unlike, say, New York, whose network has actually shrunk since the war, and which is only now building a small part of the Second Avenue Subway, which has been the top priority for new construction since 1929). But every time they've built, it has taken them decades longer than it should have, and been at enormous and ballooning cost. The DLR, by contrast, keeps being expanded on time and on budget, and its capacity has greatly increased over time. That's why I think it represents something of a good model -- build modestly to begin, and scale up if needed, rather than waiting decades to build the perfect system.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by ajb View Post
                            The DLR, by contrast, keeps being expanded on time and on budget, and its capacity has greatly increased over time. That's why I think it represents something of a good model -- build modestly to begin, and scale up if needed, rather than waiting decades to build the perfect system.
                            Interestingly, DLR is most comparable to our high-floor LRT. Not only does it use high-floor vehicles, but it operates for a large part of it's route on existing rail ROWs. its' 100% grade separated or fenced from the streets so it can be driverless. If anything it's more heavy than our heavy LRT, not an example that would lead us to go low-floor, on street.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Dialog View Post
                              Saying "completely bisects their downtown core" makes it sound like there's going to be some notable physical barrier introduced by the 102 Ave LRT; concrete or chainlink or something. For some there might be a psychological barrier, but somehow Calgarians have been able to wrap their heads around crossing 7th Ave by foot. I hope we can rise to the challenge like they did down south...
                              Rise to the challenge of 7th Ave in Calgary? I hope we are setting our sights higher than that. I mean if Calgarians are in love with it so much then why are they proposing their future expansions to be built in a new tunnel through downtown.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by ajb View Post
                                @Cured: well, the thing about "completely bisects the downtown core" is that that means about ten blocks. You'll find lots of places in those cities of comparable density and traffic to downtown Edmonton that do in fact have in-street light rail separated from traffic.
                                OK, I'll acknowledge that this is done in some circumstances on certain lines. But hardly ever through the downtown core. I can find no examples of a complete line built barrier free anywhere in europe, unless it is considered a tram. I found more examples of tram lines being converted to dedicated ROWs and surface lines being replaced by new tunnels.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X