Edmonton Public Transit - Page 224

MrOilers · #**4461** Posted **Oct 6, 2010, 3:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikemike

17th street as an actual need is decades away. There is very little traffic there, way, way, less than yellowhead & 127.

I wouldn't say "decades", but I agree. The traffic at 17th street is nothing compared to some of the intersections on the Yellowhead. Not even close.

Coldrsx · #**4462** Posted **Oct 6, 2010, 3:26 PM**

^true, but it is really the last 'piece' of the puzzle to make the Whitemud complete other than redoing the stupidity at the Terwillegar Drive interchange.

They probably want to do it to say the whitemud is 'done'.

noodlenoodle · #**4463** Posted **Oct 6, 2010, 3:29 PM**

I'd rather have an 80% complete freeway and an 80% complete LRT system than a 100% complete freeway and a 50% complete LRT system.

Coldrsx · #**4464** Posted **Oct 6, 2010, 3:33 PM**

^an interchange there is less than what, 100mil, let it be...

If completing that finally means a renewed focus on LRT than so be it.

...IF

240glt · #**4465** Posted **Oct 6, 2010, 3:37 PM**

^ I wouldn't say 'renewed', more like continued. Edmonton has made some great strides in the past five years with the completion of the SLRT and the start of the NWLRT, just need to keep it a priority.

I still think that having the whole works done by 2017 is a tall order... however, if we can go from one of the worst LRT systems to one of the best in that period of time I will be very happy.

Coldrsx · #**4466** Posted **Oct 6, 2010, 9:14 PM**

Has there been enough public consultation about the west and southeast LRT lines?
Yes, let's get on with it
62.81 %
No, they've ignored us
9.09 %
There's been some, but we need more
9.92 %
I'll never use the LRT, so I don't care
18.18 %

mcc16 · #**4467** Posted **Oct 7, 2010, 5:41 AM**

Is that your own personal poll? lol

I'm excited about the two new lines. I really think 87ave would have been a better first west line but whatev, move on.

Has the city picked the low floor trains they will be using yet or is that still pretty far off? Is it still going to be able to carry the same capacity as our high floor?

MalcolmTucker · #**4468** Posted **Oct 7, 2010, 11:27 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcc16

Is that your own personal poll? lol

I'm excited about the two new lines. I really think 87ave would have been a better first west line but whatev, move on.

Has the city picked the low floor trains they will be using yet or is that still pretty far off? Is it still going to be able to carry the same capacity as our high floor?

No, and no. There is no low floor LRV trainset that can operate at the same capacity as high floor LRVs. Doesn't mean one can't be built however. Plus, the new lines aren't designed to have as much capacity because it isn't needed - the current line doesn't operate anywhere close to design capacity either.

240glt · #**4469** Posted **Oct 7, 2010, 4:12 PM**

I do not agree that the demand will not be there. Maybe not at the moment the line is built but there are plenty of high density residential and employment nodes that are going to fill the trains. I am far from sold on this "low floor" system and part of me thinks it is a bad idea, but the millitant urbanistas here seem to think this is a good thing so I won't make a stink about it.

The current line may not be at design capacity but it is definitely at capacity with the frequency & number of cars they running now. In fact it's probably at capacity becuase the electrical system can't take any more trains on the line 'till the upgrade is done next year..

mcc16 · #**4470** Posted **Oct 7, 2010, 5:48 PM**

Thats exactly why i thought high floor on 87 ave would be the better line to do first. Full trains going from the west to the university and on to downtown on the quickest route... Then, when stony plain is built up enough, build the second low floor line ...

MalcolmTucker · #**4471** Posted **Oct 7, 2010, 5:59 PM**

^ Yeah, if you're splitting the line to the north, there is little harm to splitting it in the south capacity wise.

feepa · #**4472** Posted **Oct 8, 2010, 5:04 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcc16

Thats exactly why i thought high floor on 87 ave would be the better line to do first. Full trains going from the west to the university and on to downtown on the quickest route... Then, when stony plain is built up enough, build the second low floor line ...

I thought I was the only one left in the city that believes this. WLRT route is not good enough as currently planned.

noodlenoodle · #**4473** Posted **Oct 8, 2010, 5:08 AM**

I'm right with you on this as well. I'm mostly resigned to the chosen alignment, but I'd prefer a 4 ended system be put in place to leverage the tunnel/bridge we have already more effectively.

mcc16 · #**4474** Posted **Oct 8, 2010, 6:06 AM**

I guess it's too bad all Mandel's friends live by the zoo. Something fishy happened here. Everyone was so excietd about the 87ave route, and then all of a sudden it shifted. Now its pretty much just gonna be fancy expensive express bus service through the ghetto (until stony plane road is redeveloped).

Just for the record, im voting mandel. I just think this specific decision was kind of weird...

noodlenoodle · #**4475** Posted **Oct 8, 2010, 2:32 PM**

I concur. It seems like they picked their alignment and then drew up the criteria to ensure that the deck was stacked in its favor.

The fact that transportation isn't the primary goal of transit (insofar as alignment criteria) boggles my mind.

yo-youyi · #**4476** Posted **Oct 13, 2010, 4:11 PM**

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Prov...International+Airport/3663768/story.html

Bus to Service YEG Approved

Hallsy's Toupee · #**4477** Posted **Oct 13, 2010, 4:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by yo-youyi

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Prov...International+Airport/3663768/story.html

Bus to Service YEG Approved

Yay! Glad some sense shone through.

etown · #**4478** Posted **Oct 13, 2010, 4:37 PM**

What is the advantage of low floor lrt? Doesn't it make more sense to operate the same kind of train throughout the system? Less training for operators/maintenance, less parts inventory, more flexibility on the system by shifting additional cars on routes as needed for special events.

Am I missing some great benefit? Or does the city just want a funky bus?

MalcolmTucker · #**4479** Posted **Oct 13, 2010, 5:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by etown

What is the advantage of low floor lrt? Doesn't it make more sense to operate the same kind of train throughout the system? Less training for operators/maintenance, less parts inventory, more flexibility on the system by shifting additional cars on routes as needed for special events.

Am I missing some great benefit? Or does the city just want a funky bus?

If you don't care about capacity vs footprint, stations are much cheaper and easier to integrate into a roadway.

mick · #**4480** Posted **Oct 13, 2010, 6:10 PM**

Capacity and speed on system are less about low-floor vs. high floor and more about ROW. The more separated the better for both speed and capacity.