Edmonton Public Transit - Page 266

240glt · #**5301** Posted **Feb 4, 2012, 4:17 AM**

I think this propsed east-west line is a serious compromise as well. We're creating an overlapping, uncompatible system that will do the job but seriously neglects what LRT is all about.

This is all conjecture as the route and system is already selected... but my ideal system, using the same rolling stock, is as such:

Route to the west end heads straight down Jasper underground, branching off just after Corona... cut & cover all the way to 124, punch through Groat ravine and head undergound down SPR, and comes above ground around 142st, and head to WEM the same way it will now, above ground and above grade as required.

Mill Woods line branches off just after Central, Cut & cover down Jasper to 96st and not come above grade until it pokes through the side of the valley at 95st and then heads south.

What's key is that LRT is a people mover that can get you to various locales throughout the city quickly with minimul fuss. In order to accomodate the movements stemming from LRT traffic I would run streetcars that run between LRT stations to give much broader coverage... such as:

-Whyte Ave from Bonie Doon to the Univeristy
-Downtown from City hall down 103ave and making it's way to around 124st
-118th ave from NAIT to Beverly

.. and so on. This is all a pipe dream as I know that we're going to end up with the plan that is in place now... and for the record I am still happy because sometimes a compromise is better than nothing at all, Just feel that it could have been done so much better.

Clearshades · #**5302** Posted **Feb 4, 2012, 5:00 AM**

My only fear is too much tunnelling plays on the cost factor. I could be wrong.
I agree there are too much over lapping at this stage. An example would be the Nait-HS line. Hence my belief to millwoods is more pragmatic. Nait can transfer at Churchill (Central Station) to HS. Using Cars this way is a waste-especially with no plans for UoA south campus. The amount of over lapping can rival NY for the population we have.

I innitially had pictured in my head a system of 4 line like this:

1) NE-SW 2) NW-SE 3) W-E 4) N-S

every other area will use buses to funnel passengers to lrt. If you visuallize it, it would look like a spider's web. I don't mind the loop for for the central core.

mick · #**5303** Posted **Feb 4, 2012, 6:53 AM**

Feepa - it seems your dream scenario under uses the tunnel, which you indicated could handle 6 legs, not 4. Perhaps you see some headway/capacity issues with 6 legs using the tunnel. All in all, it seems the only difference between your dream and the ultimate city proposed buildout is the 87 ave wlrt, unless you're seLRT tunnels through downtown.

feepa · #**5304** Posted **Feb 4, 2012, 3:22 PM**

you could fit 12 legs down there with 12 minute headways... just saying. 6 legs would be a bit much. 4 legs with 5 minute headways (a train in each direction in the tunnel every 2.5 minutes) seems to be about ideal.

The surface routes I've drawn (thin lines) are just different ideas for low floor in the city. The main point was trying to show what could be done with our high floor network (thick lines)...

I also like 240glt idea the best - but the cost of tunnel through Oliver would be huge.

MalcolmTucker · #**5305** Posted **Feb 4, 2012, 5:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by feepa

you could fit 12 legs down there with 12 minute headways... just saying. 6 legs would be a bit much. 4 legs with 5 minute headways (a train in each direction in the tunnel every 2.5 minutes) seems to be about ideal.

The surface routes I've drawn (thin lines) are just different ideas for low floor in the city. The main point was trying to show what could be done with our high floor network (thick lines)...

I also like 240glt idea the best - but the cost of tunnel through Oliver would be huge.

Last thing you want to pull is a BART, with many lines radiating from a single choke point tunnel, greatly limiting headways. It is fine for a commuter system, and sure if you ran 5 car trains you would have enough capacity for a while, but any time savings you gain from having the incremental line in the tunnel is more than lost by the increase in waiting times and transfer times.

Clearshades · #**5306** Posted **Feb 5, 2012, 6:50 AM**

It could have two levels of tunnels. There is no dictation it has to use its current structure.

mick · #**5307** Posted **Feb 5, 2012, 10:30 PM**

Yes, there is: money.

feepa · #**5308** Posted **Feb 5, 2012, 10:37 PM**

two tunnels would be very cost prohibitive.

Clearshades · #**5309** Posted **Feb 6, 2012, 1:46 AM**

Yes, Im cognizant of that as well. However, once the system is overloaded, alternative solutions are slim, so levelled tunnels or above ground options have to be considered. No matter how we chose to analyze this, cost will always play into the equation.

MalcolmTucker · #**5310** Posted **Feb 6, 2012, 3:18 AM**

I don't think you get that Edmonton doesn't need to plan for when all the spokes need to have capacity over 15,000 ppdph - it ain't happening within the project payout period.

In street operating can handle a lot of people. Look at Calgary,

Clearshades · #**5311** Posted **Feb 6, 2012, 4:28 AM**

I do get it Malcom. The culmination of options below and at ground level will only sustain to a precipice level of population- Ill project that to approximately 3-3.5 million- which for us is still quite a considerable distance away from reaching that status. However, try NY, or Tokyo, and tell me if that is feasible?most likely not. I prefer, personally, any line downtown to be underground or above ground elevation. All the arguments are true to the extent of certain timeline to the future; once we surpass that, it is all trouble. Calgary's ground level system, in my opinion, will sustain to a peak level of 1.6 million and they will need to entertain viable options. If one is arguing just regular transit option, rather than rapid transition, this is affective; but moving mass population as a form of quick transport, you find it to be impossible for the fact that downtown will transform to a larger scale than what it is today. My assertion of level tunnelling would not be economically affective for today, or the short future. That is true!

Jasper and one o nin · #**5312** Posted **Feb 6, 2012, 4:38 PM**

^oh FFS!

240glt · #**5313** Posted **Feb 6, 2012, 4:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

In street operating can handle a lot of people. Look at Calgary,

Calgary's downtown system is terrible!!! That's the last thing we should be trying to model ourselves after!

MalcolmTucker · #**5314** Posted **Feb 7, 2012, 12:15 AM**

Different using above ground for 1 line, than trying to use it for 2!

Shodan · #**5315** Posted **Feb 8, 2012, 1:46 PM**

Prepare to add an LRT stop at 40th Avenue, Iveson recommends

Gordon Kent
Edmonton Journal

Wednesday, February 08, 2012

Coun. Don Iveson wants Edmonton to look at adding the first new stop within the existing LRT system by putting a station at 40th Avenue.

Southwest trains now travel along 111th Street for 3.3 kilometres between Southgate and Century Park, but Iveson would like a platform built to interrupt that trip...

[email protected]
© Edmonton Journal 2012

Copyright © 2012 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.
CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.

http://www2.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=2195d384-84ac-4a7b-abdf-ce01289d6371&sponsor=

Coldrsx · #**5316** Posted **Feb 8, 2012, 2:37 PM**

I really like the idea of a 40th avenue stop. Literally a platform with a small glass shelter. Simple, done.

feepa · #**5317** Posted **Feb 8, 2012, 3:02 PM**

simple, done, but pointless until the surrounding area starts to redevelop. Even the closest houses to what would be 40th avenue would still have to walk 10-15 minutes to get the station. The street pattern surrounding what would be 40th avenue station are all inward facing cul du sacs....

in 15-30 years as those apartment blocks are replaced along with some of the housing stock, we can fix the problems with the street patterns, and make the area walkable, and add a LRT station. Before than? Just a waste of time and resources.

240glt · #**5318** Posted **Feb 8, 2012, 3:25 PM**

Wouldn't that platform be sitting on the meridian right in the middle of 111st ? I think by virtue of the orientationof the line being right in the middle of the street, a more complicated structure would be required.

I agree with Feepa, this is way low on the priority list.

rapid_business · #**5319** Posted **Feb 8, 2012, 3:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by feepa

simple, done, but pointless until the surrounding area starts to redevelop. Even the closest houses to what would be 40th avenue would still have to walk 10-15 minutes to get the station. The street pattern surrounding what would be 40th avenue station are all inward facing cul du sacs....

in 15-30 years as those apartment blocks are replaced along with some of the housing stock, we can fix the problems with the street patterns, and make the area walkable, and add a LRT station. Before than? Just a waste of time and resources.

Yes and no. The original proposal pitched to the community was that any new station would only come on the back of an Area Redevelopment Plan that would allow significant density boosts along 40th Ave from Petrolia to Duggan strip malls. An LRT stop would act as a catalyst for infill and redevelopment, and the land use zoning would support it.

Coldrsx · #**5320** Posted **Feb 8, 2012, 4:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 240glt

Wouldn't that platform be sitting on the meridian right in the middle of 111st ? I think by virtue of the orientationof the line being right in the middle of the street, a more complicated structure would be required.

I agree with Feepa, this is way low on the priority list.

Depends on the cost.