J22 | 46.02m | 13s | Pangman | DIALOG

I understand pushing for innovation, creative approaches to our city, etc. We aren't good at that and should get better.

But still don't understand this idea that implementing proven solutions from other cities is bad. This isn't rocket science. We don't need to reinvent transit and street design. There are proven ways to make better cities. To not learn from others would be small minded, arrogant, and foolish I think. I dont think that's what your suggesting, but the suggestion that we should never copy seems silly.
 
thommyjo said:
We don't need to reinvent transit
Click to expand...
No we don't, but on the other hand we don't need to copy cities that are using out-of-date technology. Linear Synchronous Motors are about 5 times as efficient as overhead power lines as a means of electric propulsion for trains, more maintenance-free, and can be controlled by one person at a central location -- in other words, the operational cost is far, far, (let me write it one more time) far less than the copycat solution that other Canadian Cities have advanced and Edmonton has adopted. Japan has implemented that in its latest ventures because the technology is proven and extremely smart. The system is also safer with a built-in avoidance means for crashes. So we have the "proven" systems evident in Toronto, Waterloo, Ottawa, Vancouver and Calgary -- but they are already nearly a Century old in terms of technology. If Edmonton keeps "following" what other Cities have adopted maybe we'll reinstate the steam locomotive. So call it "silly"; I call it blatantly stupid. There is a case for ancient technology and that is evident in the ERRS layout -- a colloquial, historical, neighborhood-friendly system that brings people to the retail and hospitality bricks-and-mortar world that is so dearly under stress; it is not meant to be an A to Z transit solution. Edmonton could use a little "rocket science" in its thinking, but as long as we are happy with what other Cities are doing well, then, we don't have to think at all -- just copy. Where do you think that will lead @thommyjo?
 
archited said:
No we don't, but on the other hand we don't need to copy cities that are using out-of-date technology. Linear Synchronous Motors are about 5 times as efficient as overhead power lines as a means of electric propulsion for trains, more maintenance-free, and can be controlled by one person at a central location -- in other words, the operational cost is far, far, (let me write it one more time) far less than the copycat solution that other Canadian Cities have advanced and Edmonton has adopted. Japan has implemented that in its latest ventures because the technology is proven and extremely smart. The system is also safer with a built-in avoidance means for crashes. So we have the "proven" systems evident in Toronto, Waterloo, Ottawa, Vancouver and Calgary -- but they are already nearly a Century old in terms of technology. If Edmonton keeps "following" what other Cities have adopted maybe we'll reinstate the steam locomotive. So call it "silly"; I call it blatantly stupid. There is a case for ancient technology and that is evident in the ERRS layout -- a colloquial, historical, neighborhood-friendly system that brings people to the retail and hospitality bricks-and-mortar world that is so dearly under stress; it is not meant to be an A to Z transit solution. Edmonton could use a little "rocket science" in its thinking, but as long as we are happy with what other Cities are doing well, then, we don't have to think at all -- just copy. Where do you think that will lead @thommyjo?
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think you give a valid example where copying certain types of technology is not helpful and takes away our ability to "leapfrog" forward. But I would also say there's a lot im talking about that isn't as "progressive" as technology and transit. Good sidewalks, parks, street fronts and bike lanes aren't rapidly evolving technologies going out of date every 50-75 years. Many of our best streets globally are hundreds of years old. So I do think we should look to them and learn from them.

There's a time to innovate and a time to learn from others. I think at minimum, we need to "catch up" on the basics (sidewalks) before we try to innovate. Not an either/or, more a both/and. But priority should be the basics.
 
Wrong on the sidewalks too. If you have been following my posts on this website, I just completed a study related to using crushed granite (or decomposed granite, if you like) mixed in with a matrix of iron filings whereby a low-grade electric charge (high voltage:low amperage) through the matrix effectuated at the precise proper time could eliminate snow and ice on sidewalks and thereby eliminate the need for "snow removal". Imagine what a boon this would be for a City like Edmonton and how this would change and improve the use of sidewalks and bike-ways in the City. Should we wait for another City to show us the way here too?
 
Last edited:
archited said:
Wrong on the sidewalks too. If you have been following my posts on this website, I just completed a study related to using crushed granite (or decomposed granite, if you like) mixed in with a matrix of iron filings whereby a low-grade electric charge (high voltage:low amperage) through the matrix effectuated at the precise proper time could eliminate snow and ice on sidewalks and thereby eliminate the need for "snow removal". Imagine what a boon this would be for a City like Edmonton and how this would change and improve the use of sidewalks and bike-ways in the City. Should we wait for another City to show us the way here too?
Click to expand...
Whats the cost per square meter for that?
 

Edmonton AB Snowfall Totals & Snow Accumulation Averages - Current Results

When, how much, how often Edmonton, Alberta has snow. Monthly and yearly data on total days and amounts of snowfall, snow accumulation, heavy snowstorms, first snowfall.
www.currentresults.com www.currentresults.com
Edmonton, on average would only have to "turn on" the system 52 times per year (less than 2 months in total) and only for the duration of the snow event -- about 208 hours on average for the entire year. The result would be snow-free paths for pedestrians and cyclists. And when roads for cars/trucks are brought into the system over time we would totally remove the need for snow removal equipment, importation of gravel and salt, and freeze-thaw surface anomalies that lead to pot-holes and grade differentials. Added bonus -- there is a huge color palate to choose from so we could create very interesting differentiation between pedestrian paths, bike paths, and roadways. Seems like a no-brainer to me. Maybe some other Cities could copy Edmonton for a change!
 
@thommyjo I am now in the middle of compiling data so I don't have final numbers but, already, I do see the trend for greatly reduced costs. With the Precambrian shield to the northeast and the Rockies to the west we have an ample supply of granite and we do have iron deposits that are mine-able in the Peace country. There is a nascent industry here. We can save the asphalt and tar for major highways and for other Cities who have lost their way.
 
archited said:
@thommyjo I am now in the middle of compiling data so I don't have final numbers but, already, I do see the trend for greatly reduced costs. With the Precambrian shield to the northeast and the Rockies to the west we have an ample supply of granite and we do have iron deposits that are mine-able in the Peace country. There is a nascent industry here. We can save the asphalt and tar for major highways and for other Cities who have lost their way.
Click to expand...
If the technology works and is financially viable, amazing! Still think we should copy vancouver's grade seperated bike paths in the meantime.
 
Haha. Love that you're a dreamer man. We need guys like you. We also just need safe bike lanes in the meantime! Thats all I want hahaha. Let's start there.
 
Here's an analogy for you @thommyjo -- supposing that it is final exam time and you are seated next to a really smart guy (but this guy doesn't need this particular test to get an "A" on the entire course). He didn't study for the exam, not needing the grade. You, on the other hand, struggled with the course through the entire term. You studied hard for the quiz, looking up resource after resource and mentally testing yourself all the way to this, the hour of potential doom. Now here is the question: are you going to copy the answers of the smart guy next to you who is already in "A" territory or are you going to apply your own study efforts? If you copy the genius, you run the risk of not only getting caught for cheating but you also may get a failing grade because smarty-pants may have just put a half-hearted effort into the exam. If, however, you rely on your own research you may still fail, but your learning may avail you of permanent knowledge. Copy or apply the research? -- that is the question. Lazy or progressive? -- that is the question. Good enough for a bare pass? -- that is the question. Complete trust in deep thinkers or leading on the thinking curve? -- that is the question.

Edmonton will NEVER lead as long as it continues to follow.
 
archited said:
Here's an analogy for you @thommyjo -- supposing that it is final exam time and you are seated next to a really smart guy (but this guy doesn't need this particular test to get an "A" on the entire course). He didn't study for the exam, not needing the grade. You, on the other hand, struggled with the course through the entire term. You studied hard for the quiz, looking up resource after resource and mentally testing yourself all the way to this, the hour of potential doom. Now here is the question: are you going to copy the answers of the smart guy next to you who is already in "A" territory or are you going to apply your own study efforts? If you copy the genius, you run the risk of not only getting caught for cheating but you also may get a failing grade because smarty-pants may have just put a half-hearted effort into the exam. If, however, you rely on your own research you may still fail, but your learning may avail you of permanent knowledge. Copy or apply the research? -- that is the question. Lazy or progressive? -- that is the question. Good enough for a bare pass? -- that is the question. Complete trust in deep thinkers or leading on the thinking curve? -- that is the question.

Edmonton will NEVER lead as long as it continues to follow.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't be copying but I certainly wouldn't mind the A student as a study partner.
 
TAS said:
I wouldn't be copying but I certainly wouldn't mind the A student as a study partner.
Click to expand...
Exactly^^ study partner is right.

Also...poor analogy. Cause cheating is illegal. Better analogy would be "do i use the Pythagorean theorem, or reinvent how to solve an already solved mathematical equation?

Id learn from the textbooks and teachers, not reinvent it and use my saved time to get good at other things also.

Edmonton needs to learn from others to accomplish the basics, then decide the right places to take risk and innovate. Playing with winter playground design, all year patio designs, even what you said...self heating sidewalks! Those are sensible. We don't need to reinvent the basics of urban design though...

To think we can't learn from great cities like Vancouver is, again, silly and probably arrogant. 🤷‍♂️
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top