HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted May 6, 2010, 7:52 AM
Strange Meat's Avatar
Strange Meat Strange Meat is offline
I like this much better
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: 5280
Posts: 10,636
The street lights in Denver are timed and sequenced as such that there
is no scheduled LRT interference. Also, certain stations have departure
times where trains will wait a minute or two sometimes. No big deal really.
__________________
towers of skulls!!!!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted May 6, 2010, 9:56 AM
SnyderBock's Avatar
SnyderBock SnyderBock is offline
Robotic Construction
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,733
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandon716 View Post

...This makes sense for cities that are actually urban/transit oriented. Light rail makes sense for cities that really just have it as a supplement to an auto-oriented culture, such as in St Louis or Denver. Its better to have something than nothing, especially if we ever begin to have major energy supply disruptions. That's the only time I could see cities like Portland, Denver, St Louis, etc start to build serious amounts of TOD development with tens of thousands of housing units around transit and business office parks around transit.
I'm just not following you here. I'd say 98% of Denver's existing and planned Light Rail is completely grade separated in dedicated ROW. As I mentioned, the small downtown portion which isn't, has been bypassed with the CPV line to Union Station and is being converted into more of a streetcar starter line.

You say we'll never see major transit usage in Denver in our lifetimes, yet it's being projected to surpass 20% transit usage by 2025. That's fairly major for American cities, especially for medium sized American cities.

You say only if we have major energy supply disruptions, will cities like Portland, Denver & Saint Louis start building major TOD's. Again, I don't get it. Denver's Union Station neighborhood is a downtown TOD which will add over 3 million sq.ft. of office, thousands of residential units and a couple hotels and substantial retail. Then there is the countries largest TOD in Denver at the former Stapleton Airport which is less than 50% built-out and at full build-out will have 35,000 residents, and millions of sq.ft. of mix-use office/retail. There are dozens of other significant TOD's in various stages around Denver (some equally as impressive to the two I described). What exactly would qualify as substantial?

The trend is growing towards these TOD's and sustainable growth. I don't see why this trend will reverse. The next decade should see a lot of urban infill, LRT and EMU construction and increasing transit ridership in Denver.
__________________
Automation Is Still the Future
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted May 6, 2010, 10:26 AM
cabotp cabotp is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 2,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandon716 View Post
The WLRT video has a groovy soundtrack, for a demonstration video...

BTW, I think the problem with transit planning is forgetting the future and forecasting. Making an appropriate investment, even if it costs more, is the best option because of what can develop after its built. It is an infrastructure investment that will last many, many decades and if maintained correctly indefinitely into the future. I don't think transit is like highways because once you build a transit line, due to the nature of it, development can be radically different than building a highway in the middle of nowhere. Transit is typically built in areas that are already somewhat populated, or very populated. It allows a city to become more developed and redevelop existing neighborhoods as opposed to growth in the middle of nowhere.
This is one the biggest reasons I love the system in Vancouver. While it is an ALRT and has some similarities to other LRT system in terms of capacity per car. The fact that it is fully automated and grade separated makes it so much more. It might have cost us billions to build it. But it has guaranteed us a system that is more future proofed. It fully proved the worth of having it during the Olympics.

I know there are "people" out there who keep saying. Well you could of built so many more lines if you had built a cheaper LRT system. Sure we could of, but our system overall would have been slower. Once you get down at street level. And other vehicles or people can cross the tracks. It has to run slower for safety reasons. Sure you might be able to run the same frequency or train lengths. But it can't get up to top speed like a fully separated system can.

That said just because you build an LRT line it doesn't mean your are guaranteed TOD development around the stations. You really need a city council that is forward thinking and looking to build those TODs. It also helped that certain areas of Metro Van where commercial / industrial waste lands. So it was very easy to just knock out the buildings and start putting up the towers.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted May 6, 2010, 10:43 AM
Nexis4Jersey's Avatar
Nexis4Jersey Nexis4Jersey is offline
Greetings from New Jersey
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: In the Pascack Valley
Posts: 2,938
Cities like Denver , St. Louis , & Portland are great examples on how a smaller system can produce alot positive results. Denver & Portland seem to be expanding at the same speed atm. St. Louis has the backing of the majority of the region. The one thing that LRT does do in every place its built , is attract investors. I think Denver will one day have a system as dense as Boston's. Its not really a question of if it will happen , but when it will happen. In 30 years , i think almost every city in the us will have a Streetcar , Light Rail or Regional Rail station within its borders. Our Country over the past 20 years has slowly gone back to the original days of Streetcars and Regional systems. LRT & any kind of Urban / Suburban molded rapid transit system is our future. Not Highways and roads which have proved nothing but stressful and environmentally damaging. Most of the Northeast plans to rebuild our systems over the next 20 years. So one day in 20 years , you can hope on a Train in Bangor,ME and travel down to Allentown ,PA on various routes. Many cities are planning to build or restore streetcar or light rail service. The Midwest is not that far behind the Northeast , although alot more work needs to be done.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted May 6, 2010, 2:27 PM
Cirrus's Avatar
Cirrus Cirrus is offline
cities|transit|croissants
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 17,882
The problem with a many light rail systems is that they are really commuter rail. Take Denver's FasTracks plan, for example. Most of the lines only have one stop downtown, at Union Station, with very few anywhere in the central neighborhoods. They mostly just shuttle commuters from the suburbs into a single central depot. Meanwhile, the densest and most urban parts of Denver (Colfax, Cherry Creek, Broadway) don't have lines at all.

That's OK as far as it goes. There's nothing wrong with shuttling commuters into downtown. The thing is that when that's what you're doing, light rail is the wrong technology. You can do the same thing cheaper and better using traditional rail or DMUs. And since you're saving money, you can turn those savings into more lines elsewhere in the region. Use the right technology and you can cover your whole city. use the wrong technology and you're stuck with a handful of corridors.

If you're hauling people over fairly long distances into one central point, use commuter rail.

If you're circulating people around a small, dense area, use streetcars or light rail. Light rail is really just streetcars with dedicated right-of-way.

Third rail Metro systems really aren't necessary except in the biggest cities. Even at the height of the transit age in the first half of the 20th Century, very few cities had what we would call "Metros". Most of them got by very well with commuter rail and streetcar combos.
__________________
BeyondDC: blog | twitter | flickr | instagram | Exploring urbanism and transportation in the Washington, DC area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted May 6, 2010, 7:38 PM
M II A II R II K's Avatar
M II A II R II K M II A II R II K is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 45,251
Maryland Battles between Heavy and Light Rail


Apr 9th, 2010

Yonah Freemark



Read More: http://americancity.org/columns/entry/2205/

Quote:
In cities across America, light rail has become the symbol of success in transit development. Hoping to demonstrate their interest in public transportation and following the example of Portland, cities like Denver or Dallas are building nothing else. But it hasn’t always been that way.

Until the 1980s, heavy rail—more like the New York Subway—was the choice of both the federal government and most municipalities. That’s why in the sixties and seventies, Congress committed to spending billions of dollars on new subway systems in Atlanta, Baltimore, Miami, San Francisco, and Washington. But those projects were wildly expensive and less performing than originally expected. With the exception of a single line added in Los Angeles during the 1990s, there has been nothing built since, because heavy rail, with its separated guideways and frequently underground or elevated stations, is simply much more expensive than light rail.

For the citizens of cities like Baltimore, which has dabbled in both varieties of rail over the years, there are palpable differences in service quality between its heavy rail Metro and its light rail lines. The first travels much more quickly and does so entirely in its own right-of-way, ensuring no collisions with automobiles; even better, its stations are fully featured and located directly beneath the downtown business district. The latter, on the other hand, provides slower commuting times because its in-the-road corridor is prone to delays and its stations are out of the way.

It is in that context that the Maryland Senate’s Budget and Taxation Committee last month asked the state’s MTA transit agency to reconsider its current plans to use light rail on two proposed transit corridors: one, the Red Line through central city Baltimore, and another, the Purple Line proposed to run a circumferential route around Washington, D.C. The Committee’s members suggested that the MTA at least evaluate using heavy rail for each of those routes.



Baltimore Light Rail. Credit: sneakerdog

__________________
ASDFGHJK
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted May 6, 2010, 8:06 PM
Cirrus's Avatar
Cirrus Cirrus is offline
cities|transit|croissants
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 17,882
I love NAC, but that's a terrible article.

Quote:
With the exception of a single line added in Los Angeles during the 1990s, there has been nothing built since,
Not true.

One line or another of DC Metro has been under construction almost continuously since the 1980s, including all through the 90s and 2000s, and still today. Also, New York is building its 2nd Avenue subway.

Quote:
It is in that context that the Maryland Senate’s Budget and Taxation Committee last month asked the state’s MTA transit agency to reconsider its current plans to use light rail on two proposed transit corridors
Also not true.

That request was a thinly-veiled attempt by transit opponents to kill a couple projects that are fully planned and waiting for funding by sending them back to the drawing board. The action had nothing to do with trying to get better transit and everything to do with trying to stop the state from spending money on anything but highways.

By the way, both the Purple Line and Baltimore Red Line light rail proposals run either underground or in elevated sections through the most busy parts their routes.
__________________
BeyondDC: blog | twitter | flickr | instagram | Exploring urbanism and transportation in the Washington, DC area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted May 6, 2010, 9:51 PM
ue ue is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Notleygrad, Albertastan
Posts: 8,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ayreonaut View Post
Buffalo's system seems very bizarre. That said, I'm jealous because, for the time being, Calgary has no underground stations (our first, Westbrook, will open in 2012 as part of the WLRT).
Here's some for you guys to see (and for you, Ayreonaut, to salivate over until 2012 ) of Edmonton's underground LRT. The LRT goes above ground just a little bit after Churchill Station in Downtown to the NE line, and it come up above ground at the south end of the University of Alberta at Health Sciences/Jubilee Station (University station is underground).


http://www.flickr.com/photos/one42ch...64687/sizes/l/


http://www.flickr.com/photos/aryn/156719761/sizes/l/


http://www.flickr.com/photos/nathankendall/2705333505/

this is an old old old old old one

http://www.flickr.com/photos/3263158...68028/sizes/l/


http://www.flickr.com/photos/renejul...57242/sizes/l/

The Downtown LRT was one of the greatest part of the original Downtown/NE line from 1978. Edmonton now has the West End-Mill Woods (SE suburbs) LRT line that I mentioned before in approval of routing and whatnot and is now just looking at financing and will start 2011-2012. Anyways, this route will be low-floor (ala Portland, basically) and will go through Downtown (and thankfully, the high dense neighborhood of Oliver) before crossing the river and going to SE Edmonton and won't go underground. I don't mind though, as it looks like the low floor technology will fit in better with the surroundings and won't have huge barriers and platforms and escalators or elevators just to get to the station (which happens in a lot of the suburban stations along with going underground Downtown).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted May 7, 2010, 7:15 PM
CPVLIVE's Avatar
CPVLIVE CPVLIVE is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 570
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirrus
The problem with a many light rail systems is that they are really commuter rail. Take Denver's FasTracks plan, for example. Most of the lines only have one stop downtown, at Union Station, with very few anywhere in the central neighborhoods. They mostly just shuttle commuters from the suburbs into a single central depot. Meanwhile, the densest and most urban parts of Denver (Colfax, Cherry Creek, Broadway) don't have lines at all.

That's OK as far as it goes. There's nothing wrong with shuttling commuters into downtown. The thing is that when that's what you're doing, light rail is the wrong technology. You can do the same thing cheaper and better using traditional rail or DMUs. And since you're saving money, you can turn those savings into more lines elsewhere in the region. Use the right technology and you can cover your whole city. use the wrong technology and you're stuck with a handful of corridors.

If you're hauling people over fairly long distances into one central point, use commuter rail.
To be clear the majority of Denver's FasTracks is EMU heavy rail. The East, Gold, and part of the Northwest are all EMU with the remainder of the NW being DMU at the moment.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted May 7, 2010, 7:55 PM
urbanactivist's Avatar
urbanactivist urbanactivist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Houston
Posts: 3,269
Light vs. heavy rail isn't the issue at all. What we're really arguing about is TOD and what systems can bring it about the best. It could be a grade-separated rickshaw lane for all I care. As long as people use it to get from point A to point B (with stops in between) then it works. Use it enough to encourage living by the system and it REALLY works.

Many cities just aren't ready for full-scale subway. It's still seen as too expensive and somewhat dangerous. But a blended system like Buffalo or Dallas strikes that perfect balance for a city that has subway potential down the line, but needs real transit solutions for today.
__________________
Photo Threads for Memphis, Dallas, Ft. Worth, Galveston (before Ike), Kansas City,Houston, more Houston
Little Rock, and New Orleans, cont'd.

For politics, check out my blog Texas Leftist
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted May 7, 2010, 9:21 PM
Cirrus's Avatar
Cirrus Cirrus is offline
cities|transit|croissants
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 17,882
Quote:
To be clear the majority of Denver's FasTracks is EMU heavy rail.
Yes that's true, and it was a smart decision given the commuter-oriented routes. I should have just said "Denver's system" rather than "FasTracks", as it's really the southern and western lines that are the wrong technology.

Quote:
Light vs. heavy rail isn't the issue at all. What we're really arguing about is TOD and what systems can bring it about the best.
You get drastically different types of TOD depending on the mode and how you've set up your line.

Commuter rail is good for small nodes of TOD that are far apart from each other and primarily residential/retail, except for one giant mother TOD at the center station (ie "downtown").

Light rail and streetcars are good for narrow corridors of TOD that are continuously urban from one end of the corridor to the other, but only a block or two deep.

Metro rail is good for building extremely high blanket density over a very large area.
__________________
BeyondDC: blog | twitter | flickr | instagram | Exploring urbanism and transportation in the Washington, DC area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted May 7, 2010, 10:26 PM
SnyderBock's Avatar
SnyderBock SnyderBock is offline
Robotic Construction
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,733
Quote:
...following the example of Portland, cities like Denver or Dallas are building nothing else
Quote:
Originally Posted by CPVLIVE View Post
To be clear the majority of Denver's FasTracks is EMU heavy rail. The East, Gold, and part of the Northwest are all EMU with the remainder of the NW being DMU at the moment.
Exactly, that article is false to claim Denver is building nothing else but Light Rail. The East, North, Gold and part of the Northwest lines will be EMU Heavy Commuter Rail. And we're not talking about once an hour type commuter rail service, but more like 7.5 minute service in peak and 15 to 30 minute service in off peak. So it's high frequency, EMU heavy commuter rail. It's kind of like a hybrid halfway between metro heavy rail and traditional commuter rail -- a poor man's metro rail, if you will. Denver also did a similar thing with it's southeast corridor, 19.2 mile long Light Rail line, in that they made it dedicated ROW, grade separated (like a metro), high frequency/high ridership and long 4-car trains (long for LRT). Denver's SE LRT line is operated more like a metro than a typical LRT line.

There is also the BRT line from downtown Denver to downtown Boulder they are building and also the 41-mile traditional DMU commuter rail line from Denver to Boulder and Longmont. So to say Denver is building nothing else (than Light Rail), is by no means accurate.
__________________
Automation Is Still the Future
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted May 7, 2010, 10:49 PM
miketoronto miketoronto is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 9,979
This is good to consider if LRT is the best option.

I agree that LRT has become a sort of fad, and cities are not really considering if it is the proper technology for their needs.

If Atlanta was building transit from the start today, I bet they would be doing LRT, instead of subway. But I would argue that it is better Atlanta went with subway, than LRT.

And I think that is what we have to look at. Cities have got to look at all options before going with LRT. Sometimes you do have to plan for the future.

In addition, too much energy is put into LRT while cities leave the rest of their transit system to rot. Without a viable bus system linking all areas together, how is one single rapid transit line, be it LRT or subway, suppose to make a difference in getting people around?

It has got to be an entire transport plan. Not just a single line.
__________________
Miketoronto
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted May 8, 2010, 12:58 AM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 2,957
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by miketoronto View Post
In addition, too much energy is put into LRT while cities leave the rest of their transit system to rot. Without a viable bus system linking all areas together, how is one single rapid transit line, be it LRT or subway, suppose to make a difference in getting people around?

It has got to be an entire transport plan. Not just a single line.
You made some excellent points. But each line is built ontop of others. I can't think of any transit systems in the world that weren't built one line at a time.

What's the basic difference between light rail and heavy (metro) rail?
Between light rail and streetcars (trams)? Between heavy (metro) and commuter rail?

The differences are often just the vehicles used and where the tracks are laid.
Commuter rail make use of existing freight railroad corridors, requiring heavy vehicles meeting FRA regulations. None of the other vehicles have to be that heavy, so all others are much lighter. Metro rail requires completely grade separated lines using third rails for power. Streetcars require streets as that is where they usually run.
What makes light rail so popular a choice is its variability of place and use. It can run like commuter rail in the suburbs with stations far apart, it can run in city streets downtown like a streetcar with stations just blocks apart. It can run in elevated guideways, or in deep subways too.
Even commuter rail can run in elevated guideways, in deep subways, or in streets; but because the vehicles are so heavy, they accelerate slowly, and require stations further apart, you will not find commuter rail stations a few blocks apart. Metros are very expensive to build because they requires full grade separation. Metros can't run on city streets because of the third rail.
Streetcars are in general much slower than all other rail transit because they aren't required to go faster than other street traffic, their slower speeds limits the length of the corridors they can run on.
But light rail can do just about everything! As the starter line in any city, they are very popular and safe choice. I agree, experienced cities can make a wise choice picking the proper train for each corridor, but not initially with the first line. The first line built in most cities is along their busiest corridor.
Why most cities select light rail over other rail option:
(1) Light rail is so much cheaper than metro rail to build. Just look how far metro lines in L.A. and Atlanta were built.
(2) Street running in the central business district allows closer station spacing popular with commuters.
(3) In suburban areas running in dedicated lanes in streets or in abandoned railroad corridors are popular choices to minimize costs
(4) Can climb much steeper grades than commuter rail vehicles when necessary and aren't limited to running in freight railroad corridors.

So, I'm not surprise light rail is a popular choice for the first rail corridor in any city. I think several streetcar and commuter rail lines would make a better and cheaper choice for any city. But few cities have the ability to afford thinking in multiple lines initially, they're lucky to afford planning and building just one line at a time....

Denver built one light rail line initially, took advantage and branched off it for a second light rail line. Only after building the first light rail lines was Denver able to pass Fast Tracks that allowed planning and building multiple lines. That's when commuter rail became the better choice for most of the lines, the downtown street running lines had already been built to distribute commuters downtown. I'm not surprised............
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted May 8, 2010, 2:11 AM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Stay in Yo Lane
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,725
If American transit systems were to start from scratch, realistically only NYC would require a completely grade-separated system. Everyone else could manage with Stadtbahns.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted May 8, 2010, 2:48 AM
Cirrus's Avatar
Cirrus Cirrus is offline
cities|transit|croissants
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 17,882
^
That's not remotely true.

Many cities can make due with that level of service, but the larger and denser ones can't. In Washington we have major capacity problems with Metro. There are parts of our system that barely work with 8-car subway. They absolutely would not work with any lesser technology.

We are building light rail now because we already have the trunk subway lines. What we're working on now are the secondary corridors.
__________________
BeyondDC: blog | twitter | flickr | instagram | Exploring urbanism and transportation in the Washington, DC area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted May 8, 2010, 3:14 AM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Stay in Yo Lane
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,725
^ The denser cities like San Francisco with Muni Metro and Boston with MBTA Green Line? Those are Stadtbahns and they seem to work in those cities.

Given the type of system WMATA is (a hybrid between heavy rail and commuter rail), I have a hard time buying your argument. Where is the density to justify the same 100% grade-separated rail system, taking into account today's strict FTA funding criteria? Note, I'm talking about grade-separation, not capacity.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted May 8, 2010, 3:45 AM
Mikemike Mikemike is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 1,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by edmontonenthusiast View Post
Edmonton's is kinda a mix. The original NE line does cross some roads, but mostly goes underneath or above roads or creates dead ends. It ripped some neighbourhoods up similar to a fwy, although less brutally and obviously. This line also did a terrible job servicing the nearby neighbourhoods and just had the main purpose of getting to the sports complexes which are dead zones for much of the year.

Downtown and University is underground but LRT.
Edmonton's NE line is built on a former Freight corridor that was still in operation at the time of construction. It actually integrates well with the surrounding neighbourhoods, thanks to decent bus service that feeds into each station, and stations that are, with the exception of the current terminus at clairview, well placed and designed to facilitate easy transfers. The line did no damage whatsoever to neighbourhoods. There are currently 6 at grade crossings on the line, which are protected with bells, barriers and flashing light just like a freight railway. The stations are somewhat overbuilt as grade separation was necessary at the time of construction, thanks to active freight lines. The line itself is very successful, and currently approaches crush loads at rush hour despite 5 minute frequency and 3 or 4 car trains.

Besides current high ridership, which relies heavily on bus transfers, and about 2,000 park&ride spaces, there is vacant or underutilized land along the line that provide opportunities to add a couple more stations while maintaining 'rapid transit' stop spacing, and could likely accommodate as many as 30,000 apartments within an easy walk of stations.

Edmonton is considering a new system of low-floor trains to serve additional sections of the city. The current plans are for exclusive ROW and 100% priority, but there will be far more conflict points and it remains to be seen how frequent the stops will be. The current plan was chosen (for the west side) over an option that would have been a branch of the high-floor system, providing significantly better travel times (we don't know how many stops they included) for most of the ridership area for about the same cost.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted May 8, 2010, 4:15 AM
ue ue is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Notleygrad, Albertastan
Posts: 8,793
^No, not the LRT per se, but putting rail...any kind, diagonal to the neighbourhood, did. But like I said, it isn't THAT bad compared to freeways ripping up neighbourhoods, but you feel it a tad bit.

The current NE Line doesn't even remotely service neighbourhoods until it passes the Yellowhead for Belvedere and Clareview. The purpose of Stadium and Coliseum was not to service the neighbourhoods like the new Belgravia-McKernan station does wonderfully, but to just get to the sports complexes. Sure, you can take a bus to the neighbourhoods but it's just more transfers and then you have to get into figuring out all the routes and whatnot as there are so many personal bus routes.

The WLRT low floor design made way way more sense. There was less TOD potential on the 87 Ave WLRT high floor one and potential for neighbourhood densification and revitalization. If the station distances are the same, the train should be no less faster than if the other style was chosen. The myth that low floor will be slower is just that, a myth. It has more to do with station distance. Your not going as quick Downtown on the LRT because there is a stop every 2-4 blocks as when you go from South Campus to Southgate on the LRT because the train gets more opportunity to speed up and has less stopping to do between SC and SG. Plus the low floor will be cheaper and quicker to build.

And we haven't been considering, we've decided on new lines past the NAIT LRT line to be low floor. The routing for WLRT has already been approved and just needs funding and whatnot. Mill Woods I believe is on the same page if not slightly behind.

WLRT Mill Woods probable routing
http://www.edmonton.ca/transportatio...Newsletter.pdf

Flip to last page to see the whole plan including other future lines potentially and stations. As you see, station spacings will likely not be that different from the current Clareview-Century Park High Floor line.
http://www.edmonton.ca/transportatio...nFactSheet.pdf

http://www.edmonton.ca/transportatio...esentation.pdf
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted May 8, 2010, 4:36 AM
Mikemike Mikemike is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 1,112
^ Considering that the rail pre-dated the neighbourhoods, there was no ripping at all. and while the station locations may have been chosen to compliment the venues, they also happen to be directly at the main cross-town avenues where they conveniently intercept buses. And, if you ever look north or SE from Stadium or NW from Coliseum, you'll see neighbourhoods that are denser than Belgravia/McKernan. Walk-in ridership is very significant at stadium, in particular.

And we're still considering. the overall corridors were voted on, but there is much to be considered. And issues like this opposition to plan to knock down houses for 'neighbourhood friendly' LRT could still knock the whole thing sideways.

The plan we have now isn't a bad one, but it ballances both the problems that this discussion is all about. At some point, as the track meanders a little, and stations grow closer, the train becomes un-attractive for crosstown traffic, which could reduce ridership to the point where LRT is no longer the appropriate technology. On the other hand, if station spacing is a bit further, traffic conflicts are reduced and speed is kept high, this line could be too successful for it's own good. With the low-floor system limited to 75m train length due to surface running downtown, demand could easily force frequency so high that the surface row becomes unworkable and additional grade separations are required, negating the benefits of lower cost and lower impact that low-floor , on street LRT is supposed to bring.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:51 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.