Edmonton Public Transit

[Coldrsx]

10-3????

11-2 at the most...or 12-2

oh to be back in uni

[Xelebes]

I'd imagine the transfer from South Campus to Downtown would be much quicker than a serpent directly from WEM to Downtown.

[rapid_business]

Newfangled hit it on the head with the 87ave alignment (which carries on to the NLRT line, terminating at NAIT or beyond.) NIMBYs are the problem, but perhaps times are changing in the city in terms of LRT? (Vision for the Corner might say otherwise though)

[Coldrsx]

^done right it could include a zoo stop and while grade would be an issue, it has a long ways to hit 114st and could make it up in that distance.

[Coldrsx]

OH HELL YES!!!

Bus rapid transit plan dies
Gordon Kent, edmontonjournal.com
Published: 7:15 pm

EDMONTON - After more than three years of study, Edmonton's transportation department is dropping plans to lure commuters out of their cars by introducing a bus rapid transit system.

A 2004 report talked about running a new generation of jumbo buses along exclusive lanes or with the right-of-way over other traffic between heated, well-lit stations up to 1.6 kilometres apart.

Councillors gave preliminary approval last July to a BRT route from Lewis Estates in the west end to downtown, which could have involved demolishing up to 15 houses and seven businesses on Stony Plain Road between 142nd and 149th streets.
Email to a friendEmail to a friendPrinter friendlyPrinter friendly
Font:

* *
* *
* *
* *

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

But transportation general manager Bob Boutilier said in a Nov. 29 letter to civic officials and politicians that he has decided to remove city material that mentions "bus rapid transit," including the website devoted to the topic.

The phrase is causing "significant confusion" among councillors and members of the public, affecting the department's work and reviews of development proposals, particularly in mature neighbourhoods, his letter said.

In an interview today, Boutilier called the term "jargon" that made many people think only of an expensive, dedicated high-tech system in its own lane.

Instead, he wants to focus on increasing the LRT system, which he said is more efficient and moves passengers faster. A report on a future growth plan is due early next year.

Service on individual bus routes can still be enhanced where appropriate by adding transit priority traffic signals, express lanes, automated tickets or other options associated with BRT, Boutilier said.

"I don't see anything changing in terms of what we're trying to do, which is move people quicker. What we do is get away from this thought that BRT is always a precursor to LRT."

Staff will continue developing transit priority corridors to deal with congestion, but the program will only purchase isolated properties when needed, meaning the city is no longer looking to buy land along Stony Plain Road.

"To gain a couple of minutes on a route by expropriating property or tearing down someone's house doesn't make sense," Boutilier said.

Officials indicated at a meeting on high-speed transit this week that they'll consider introducing a "super express" bus with limited stops from the west end to downtown, said Bill Eadie, chairman of the Glenora Community League planning and development committee.

Local residents are happy Stony Plain Road isn't being widened for a bus-only lane, he said.

"If you can achieve the same result at less cost and less disruption to the landowner, it's a win-win situation."

Coun. Linda Sloan likes Boutilier's idea, saying the city had lost some focus on future LRT growth by putting time into BRT proposals instead.

"Expending time and resources on building a completely new mode of transportation in the city, I didn't feel was the most prudent approach."

Coun. Kim Krushell said it should be cheaper to build and operate a single LRT line to the west end than the downtown BRT and a second possible route over the Quesnell Bridge to the south side.

"The cash involved with the BRT is so prohibitivly high that I think it makes far more sense to place that cash into LRT extension and don't have BRTs."

[email protected]


© Edmonton Journal 2007

[newfangled]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

OH HELL YES!!!

Bus rapid transit plan dies

...In an interview today, Boutilier called the term "jargon" that made many people think only of an expensive, dedicated high-tech system in its own lane.

Instead, he wants to focus on increasing the LRT system, which he said is more efficient and moves passengers faster. A report on a future growth plan is due early next year...

[rapid_business]

as long as this means a harder push for WLRT in the next couple years...

[noodlenoodle]

My hopes of hopes would be for us to never stop building LRT. As SLRT winds down, NLRT spins up. As NLRT nears NAIT, work starts on the bridge and building the tracks from S Campus to the crossing, while we start the SE spur line down 23/28 Ave... And so on and so on. Keeping the inertia up has to reap some sort of benefit to the local economy and the system price as a whole.

[TimB09]

Good to hear that the BRT will be put off and we will focus more on LRT. I like this guy already!

[mick]

Noodle, there's no plan that calls for a crossing departing from south campus. the 87ave alignment would join up with health sciences station.

[noodlenoodle]

Originally Posted by mick

Noodle, there's no plan that calls for a crossing departing from south campus. the 87ave alignment would join up with health sciences station.

teach me to have a couple of pints after work and attempt a post. You're absolutely right.

[mick]

Indeed, and the lesson is: why stop at two?

[RicoLance21]

Originally Posted by mick

Noodle, there's no plan that calls for a crossing departing from south campus. the 87ave alignment would join up with health sciences station.

I think they should build a spur track with a temporary station near the Cross Cancer to create a layover for both ends of the North LRT line. This will relieve some congestion between the two lines as well, don't you think?

There's already enough trouble dealing with the cross-overs at the south end of the Dudley-Menzies bridge with just one line with a 6-minute headway. Adding a line will cause more congestion unless new cross-overs are built.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Mikemike

The SE LRT will not go via the existing downtown tunnel, unless it's as a spur off SLRT at 23rd. I'm confident that by the time NLRT and WLRT are built, it will be clear that we can't shove a third train in that tunnel.

By then, CP might be out of their yards along gateway, and the high level will look good for another option.

The province has bought land for a high speed rail station on the north side of the High level bridge, using the upper deck to access it.

I can't see anything else being done with that right of way any more permanent than the radial railway society unless a provincial government is elected that wants to kill HSR.

[Mikemike]

If the city were serious about using the high level bridge for LRT, I don't think that The provice would be wise, politically, to fight it. It's not like HSR couldn't use LRT tracks and Caternary in the city if HSR ever gets built. Plus, the high level has room for three tracks, so there's room for passing.



The biggest problem with using the high level is widening the tunnel under 109st. That single track section is ok with single vehicl operation like ERRS runs, or for trains with 10min or lower frequency. Not so good for LRT.

[mersar]

Originally Posted by Mikemike

It's not like HSR couldn't use LRT tracks and Caternary in the city if HSR ever gets built. Plus, the high level has room for three tracks, so there's room for passing.

Actually its quite possible it couldn't, the voltage on the caternaries would likely be different, and the guage of the rails as well, since ETS uses different gauge then conventional rail does from what I recall (as CT 2101 and 2102 had to have new trucks to be used here after they obtained them from ETS, due to both guage and rail profile IIRC), and HSR could use potentially yet another. The passing option would potentially work, but even that could have problems.

[feepa]

Originally Posted by kyle_olsen

The province has bought land for a high speed rail station on the north side of the High level bridge, using the upper deck to access it.

I've heard different, as to where the ab gov has bought the land for the station, but I could be wrong, just as you could...

unless you have a source you can point me to?

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by feepa

I've heard different, as to where the ab gov has bought the land for the station, but I could be wrong, just as you could...

unless you have a source you can point me to?

The study by the Van Horne page 43

Land availability for the downtown Edmonton station is even more constrained than downtown Calgary. Here, the station is assumed to be situated adjacent to the Grandin LRT station within the 30 metre former CPR right-of-way that is now owned by the Province.

From the Calgary Herald "The Edmonton site -- purchased [in] about 1985 -- is now valued at about $8 million." - Oct 6 2007

From the Journal "On the south side, the province still holds former railway rights- of-way, that were obtained from CP for the purpose of high-speed rail. But once it gets over the High Level Bridge, it just sort of peters out, and there's nowhere to go north of 99th Avenue." - Dec 28. 2000



The red line is approximately 320 m long, the Van Horne report says a station needs 305 m of double track with a platform in between.

The province already owns this land, and the 2.7 km of track right of way leading to it. (from the previous crossing of Gateway Blvd to 99th Ave) The CPR owns everything to the south of there.

Presumably the marginal cost to get HSR over the bridge will be less or close to the same than buying a new station site south of 84th Ave, or at least not too much more to justify building it to directly across from the Legislature and forming a hub with the LRT line.

[Mikemike]

Originally Posted by mersar

Actually its quite possible it couldn't, the voltage on the caternaries would likely be different, and the guage of the rails as well, since ETS uses different gauge then conventional rail does from what I recall (as CT 2101 and 2102 had to have new trucks to be used here after they obtained them from ETS, due to both guage and rail profile IIRC), and HSR could use potentially yet another. The passing option would potentially work, but even that could have problems.

French (and other ) HSR often includes dual (or even triple) voltage operation, because it shares track with commuter type rail in the cities. I highly doubt that ETS LRT uses an unconventional gauge&profile. I recall ERRS's seimens streetcar has travelled on the LRT track and now uses the high level. I'll try to find some info.

Kyle, I understand that the City owns the highlevel bridge, so the city could stop HSR just as the province could stop LRT. There's always the constitutional possibilty that the province suspend the municipal gov't, but we'll see that when pigs fly.

[Coldrsx]

HSR....hahahahaha....