Edmonton Public Transit - Page 306

CMD UW · #**6101** Posted **Feb 24, 2014, 7:18 PM**

^Mistake, hardly.

Reality is the low floor will prove to be a hit. But there will still be haters no matter what. Keep hatin'.

Daveography · #**6102** Posted **Feb 24, 2014, 7:21 PM**

Just a friendly reminder, again: if the line was planned to tunnel under downtown, it might as well not be planned at all. We're scrounging for funding the line as is, the cost to add a tunnel would put it out of reach entirely.

feepa · #**6103** Posted **Feb 24, 2014, 7:26 PM**

Ottawa is building low floor LRT and they don't seem to have a problem building a 3.2 km tunnel under downtown Ottawa, or finding funding for it...

Calgary's SE LRT line will have a tunnel under downtown....

As usual, Edmonton Transportation seems to favour the "measure once, cut twice" mentality. Sure, it may make things more cost prohibitive, but in the long run, its more costly to go back and fix the mistakes.

Daveography · #**6104** Posted **Feb 24, 2014, 7:29 PM**

^ I can't say much about how the Ottawa LRT is being funded, but Calgary's SELRT planning is still many years behind our W-SE line; ours is virtually ready to start as soon as funding appears, Calgary isn't even close ready to start figuring out the funding for their line yet.

feepa · #**6105** Posted **Feb 24, 2014, 7:52 PM**

I'm 80% okay with the planned line anyways, and I don't want another downtown tunnel either, I was just being the devils advocate. (I'd actually still prefer other choices I'm sure I've made clear before)

To make me 100% on this planned line:

-Removal of the level crossing at 83rd street/whyte ave. Would love to see something like 69 avenue station (Calgary WLRT), shifting bonnie doon station a bit south
-Removal of level crossing at 109st/104 ave. This intersection is already a nightmare. Add Arena+LRT+RAM+more GMU+more people...
-Elevate on Stony Plain Road between SPR/102 Ave split at 149st, 149st - or use 100 avenue where possible (lots of mismanaged space there).

I also want to see how they plan for any needed capacity upgrades in the future. Do we need to plan for some of the downtown streets crossing 102 ave to dead end at 102?

Daveography · #**6106** Posted **Feb 24, 2014, 7:59 PM**

^ My curiousity led me to try and research Ottawa's funding.

Based on http://www.confederationline.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/3550106282013090218190.pdf:

City contribution: $930M
Federal grants: $600M
Provincial grants: $600M
Total: $2.13B

Edmonton's funding so far (from http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Iveson+makes+online+pitch+expansion+funding/9530982/story.html):

City contribution: $800M
Federal grant: $250M
Provincial grants: $235 (uncommitted)
Shortfall: $515M (potential new funds form Building Canada fund could bring that down to a $365M shortfall)

It looks like the biggest differences lies with the feds and provincial governments of Ontario versus Alberta. Go figure..."Edmonton: Still just a whistle-stop on the Canadian Pacific Railway!"

CMD UW · #**6107** Posted **Feb 24, 2014, 8:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by feepa

I'm 80% okay with the planned line anyways, and I don't want another downtown tunnel either, I was just being the devils advocate. (I'd actually still prefer other choices I'm sure I've made clear before)

To make me 100% on this planned line:

-Removal of the level crossing at 83rd street/whyte ave. Would love to see something like 69 avenue station (Calgary WLRT), shifting bonnie doon station a bit south Agree
-Removal of level crossing at 109st/104 ave. This intersection is already a nightmare. Add Arena+LRT+RAM+more GMU+more people... Agree
-Elevate on Stony Plain Road between SPR/102 Ave split at 149st, 149st - or use 100 avenue where possible (lots of mismanaged space there). Agree

I also want to see how they plan for any needed capacity upgrades in the future. Do we need to plan for some of the downtown streets crossing 102 ave to dead end at 102? Good question

^My response in bold.

mick · #**6108** Posted **Feb 24, 2014, 8:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Just because many other cities have made the same mistake doesn't make it okay.

If I considered the decision to run LRT on an dedicated grade level ROW through the core were a mistake, then, sure, your logic would make sense. As I was pointing out that other cities have taken that decision and have successful systems (Calgary being the closest and most successful example), I obviously do not believe the decision to run the Valley Line at grade to be a mistake.

I thought it was obvious from my posts that I believe at an grade, dedciated ROW with priority to be valid choice that, if implemented correctly, can be successful. Are there more challenges to manage and mitigate than running a grade separated subway line? Sure, but the evidence of other systems around the world suggests that can be successfully done, and given the ridicuolously prohibitive cost of grade separation, it is a reasonable choice and one that allows for LRT covering a greater expanse of the city in a shorter period of time.

mick · #**6109** Posted **Feb 24, 2014, 8:43 PM**

You'll recall that Ottawa had planned and funded north-south LRT line, including a downtown at grade ROW. They had signed a contract with Siemens in 2006 to build it for $700million. In 2006, a new mayor won election and promptly moved to cancel the line, insisting a tunnel was needed. Construction on the 12.5 km (2.5km in tunnel), 2.1billion line east-west line that arose from the 2006 mess began mid-2013.

Quote:

Originally Posted by feepa

I'm 80% okay with the planned line anyways, and I don't want another downtown tunnel either, I was just being the devils advocate. (I'd actually still prefer other choices I'm sure I've made clear before)

To make me 100% on this planned line:

-Removal of the level crossing at 83rd street/whyte ave. Would love to see something like 69 avenue station (Calgary WLRT), shifting bonnie doon station a bit south
-Removal of level crossing at 109st/104 ave. This intersection is already a nightmare. Add Arena+LRT+RAM+more GMU+more people...
-Elevate on Stony Plain Road between SPR/102 Ave split at 149st, 149st - or use 100 avenue where possible (lots of mismanaged space there).

I also want to see how they plan for any needed capacity upgrades in the future. Do we need to plan for some of the downtown streets crossing 102 ave to dead end at 102?

I'm more concerned about 109/104 than the other two areas you mention, though I see your points on all three. At 83 street and whyte, the LRT is crossing north-south/south-north on the west side of the intersection. The majority of traffic flows in the same directions or from west to north/south to east, which means that there won't be a need to left turn across the tracks. As for 109/104, I'd like to see what their modelling looks like, and to what grade separation options are available.

MalcolmTucker · #**6110** Posted **Feb 24, 2014, 8:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RTA

^ My curiousity led me to try and research Ottawa's funding.

Based on http://www.confederationline.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/3550106282013090218190.pdf:

City contribution: $930M
Federal grants: $600M
Provincial grants: $600M
Total: $2.13B

Edmonton's funding so far (from http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Iveson+makes+online+pitch+expansion+funding/9530982/story.html):

City contribution: $800M
Federal grant: $250M
Provincial grants: $235 (uncommitted)
Shortfall: $515M (potential new funds form Building Canada fund could bring that down to a $365M shortfall)

It looks like the biggest differences lies with the feds and provincial governments of Ontario versus Alberta. Go figure..."Edmonton: Still just a whistle-stop on the Canadian Pacific Railway!"

The City of Ottawa would give an arm and a leg to receive untied grants from the provincial government that could be used for anything instead of a one off project commitment.

Can't view the shortfall in isolation, especially since the highest priority project is 'highest priority, after we spend all the money currently in granting envelopes, and want more'. It is little difference from the funding ask for the arena in structure. Calgary was the same with the Airport Trail Tunnel - they ended up borrowing the money anyways off of future (post 2017) undetermined revenues.

In the end, we know what the answer will be: there will be a follow-on program to extend the granting framework beyond the original MSI time frame and there is still some envelope room in GreenTrip for the capital region IIRC.

From the City side I wonder though, where was the NAIT LRT supposed to be funded from before the GreenTrip dollars were announced? Where was that funding allocated to?

Coldrsx · #**6111** Posted **Feb 25, 2014, 4:07 AM**

Argh

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/edmo...d+report+recommending/9546052/story.html

Daveography · #**6112** Posted **Feb 25, 2014, 4:31 AM**

^ *groan*

MalcolmTucker · #**6113** Posted **Feb 25, 2014, 4:36 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

Argh

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/edmo...d+report+recommending/9546052/story.html

It should be noted that the community league president, Bill Moore-Kilgannon, is also trying to stop the line through his job as president of Public Interest Alberta, with the OurLRT Coalition that is against using P3 project provisioning. He would rather walk away from federal funding than get a line built.

rapid_business · #**6114** Posted **Feb 25, 2014, 4:42 AM**

Sooo… is that not a pretty big conflict of interest (bias) when claiming to represent his community as president on this issue? Might be worth a followup letter if so.

technomad · #**6115** Posted **Feb 25, 2014, 3:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CMD UW

^Mistake, hardly.

Reality is the low floor will prove to be a hit. But there will still be haters no matter what. Keep hatin'.

Low floor is now what makes valley line lousy... Changing tech does limit our bulk buying power in future as the network expands though. Combine that with needing to lifecycle cars, and the potential to do even larger split buys with Calgary (who would be foolish to change tech for their green line IMO)

Which is not to say I wouldn't like to see some streetcar routes in the city centre, just don't try to make them be crosstown LRT lines too...

technomad · #**6116** Posted **Feb 25, 2014, 3:13 PM**

And just another friendly reminder that there is no immediate need for a second downtown tunnel to connect the SE and West end to the LRT network.

SE could terminate at an underground station on 103a av, near Churchill or even joining with the elusive courthouse station, for not much if any more than punching it up the valley from Shaw onto 102 ave.

West end is better served, for less money with the 87 ave route, end of story. 87 is a better route than SPR in nearly every metric and it still blows my mind that council chose SPR...

Quote:

Originally Posted by RTA

Just a friendly reminder, again: if the line was planned to tunnel under downtown, it might as well not be planned at all. We're scrounging for funding the line as is, the cost to add a tunnel would put it out of reach entirely.

Daveography · #**6117** Posted **Feb 25, 2014, 3:40 PM**

^ ...so a train to nowhere and a total re-do of another portion of the line along a route that has already failed completely as an option? Man, you really don't want to see this built, do you?

I exaggerate, of course. I understand the desire to "do it right or not at all", but that's assuming that there aren't multiple right ways to build this thing, especially given that there are going to have to be compromises to get it built at all. Sometimes we have to give up a bit of "rightness" in how it's done in order to get it done at all.

mick · #**6118** Posted **Feb 25, 2014, 4:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by technomad

Low floor is now what makes valley line lousy... Changing tech does limit our bulk buying power in future as the network expands though. Combine that with needing to lifecycle cars, and the potential to do even larger split buys with Calgary (who would be foolish to change tech for their green line IMO)

Which is not to say I wouldn't like to see some streetcar routes in the city centre, just don't try to make them be crosstown LRT lines too...

Perhaps, if Edmonton changes suppliers, you'd have a point. But, how would purchasing low floor cars off Siemens, who has supplied the two types of rolling stock run our current line and on Calgary's, limit our bulk buying power (FYI: Calgary's next LRT line is proposed to be low floor rolling stock also)? On the previous page, I provided links to specs that demonstrate that Siemens low floor trains have similar or superior performance (speed/capacity) to our current sd160s. I'll say it again: low floor rolling stock does not equal street car. Street car is a fairly vague term but I would argue it suggests single consist cars running in mixed traffic with frequent stops (see Toronto, Seattle, and Portland). The Valley Line with its dedicated/traffic priority ROW and average 1km station spacing ain't a street car line anymore than our current line is street car line.

technomad · #**6119** Posted **Feb 26, 2014, 2:22 PM**

Quite the opposite, there's a good 4 crosstown LRT lines I'd like to see in Edmonton ASAP.

And none of what I'm proposing is a train to nowhere... these were all routes given enough study to base detailed comparisons on.

Nor is the work to date a complete waste. I don't have an issue with most of the SE route, and I really like the idea of making Bonney Doon a trench station!

It's the west end SPR route that forces the surface connection to SE through downtown, and ruins everything

Not only that, it completly squenders the value we could get out of our huge downtown tunnel investment by not running 2 full lines through it...

Quote:

Originally Posted by RTA

^ ...so a train to nowhere and a total re-do of another portion of the line along a route that has already failed completely as an option? Man, you really don't want to see this built, do you?

I exaggerate, of course. I understand the desire to "do it right or not at all", but that's assuming that there aren't multiple right ways to build this thing, especially given that there are going to have to be compromises to get it built at all. Sometimes we have to give up a bit of "rightness" in how it's done in order to get it done at all.

technomad · #**6120** Posted **Feb 26, 2014, 2:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mick

Perhaps, if Edmonton changes suppliers, you'd have a point. But, how would purchasing low floor cars off Siemens, who has supplied the two types of rolling stock run our current line and on Calgary's, limit our bulk buying power (FYI: Calgary's next LRT line is proposed to be low floor rolling stock also)? On the previous page, I provided links to specs that demonstrate that Siemens low floor trains have similar or superior performance (speed/capacity) to our current sd160s. I'll say it again: low floor rolling stock does not equal street car. Street car is a fairly vague term but I would argue it suggests single consist cars running in mixed traffic with frequent stops (see Toronto, Seattle, and Portland). The Valley Line with its dedicated/traffic priority ROW and average 1km station spacing ain't a street car line anymore than our current line is street car line.

Because not only will we need new cars for new lines, more cars will also be needed for expansion on exisiting lines, and replacing older retired vehicles. And I think it would be ill advised for Calgary to mix fleets for the same reasons.

I don't have a beef with low floor tech, I just don't think it matters when making cross town lines that should be speed and distance focused. And since we already have a high floor system... why change?

What really makes Valley line a streetcar/LRT/failure is the amount of road lanes the downtown and west end routes take away. There is already an access problem into the core, the very last thing any infrastructure project should do is make that worse. Not if you want the city centre to grow...

And it does so needlessly!! 87 Av doesn't have that impact at all, while being cheaper and leveraging value from our existing tunel investment.

As for the second tunel and the 'we can bury it later plan', from what I recall cut and cover cost about half of what bored tunneling costs, add in construction inflation and it's doing it later that is cost prohibitive, not doing it now. Especialy not if we ensure we can get another 2 for 1 deal on the tunel