LRT Expansion Planning

[dunno]

Reese from RM Transit releases a crayoning video for Edmonton!

I wish he would actually visit Edmonton before doing videos like this. I get having opinions, but he lives in Canada, and has been to every other major Canadian city to date (maybe not Calgary, I can't remember). Also, a slight nitpick, but I cringed at his pronunciation of Misericordia and the way he said 87 Avenue Northwest because nobody who's been here would add the "Northwest" like that. I've seen videos about the Netherlands that he's done where he makes an effort to pronounce things correctly. It's also very clear he isn't looking that closely at Edmonton because, no, this city doesn't have a lot of people passionate about cities (the internet may make it seem otherwise) and the south hospital is not currently being built.

 

[erudyk_29]

He lacks some local knowledge for sure, but that's a product of you know, not being a local. I'd love for him to get out here and do a city review or something after having visited, but it's not exactly cheap to fly around Canada, I have no idea what his Youtube revenue looks like but I'm sure it's not a small thing for him to get up and head to Alberta.

He's bringing attention to the city and particularly to its transit and transit future, which I think is a positive, regardless of whether he's super familiar with the city or not. He clearly knows enough to produce what looks to me like a pretty decent transit network, obviously, everyone including me would design the system differently if they were in charge, but I like Reese's vision. He's not an Edmonton based channel, he's from Vancouver and living in Toronto, so naturally he knows a lot about those cities and less about others. Much like I would be able to talk about Edmonton a lot more comfortably than Toronto or Vancouver.

I guess my point is, I'm just glad Edmonton is getting a bit of attention here, and actually beating Calgary to getting a crayoning video (and only the third crayoning video overall, behind Toronto and Vancouver). We might be annoyed at some things or notice a few inconsistencies as locals, but I think it's clear he researched and thought about this video a lot while writing it and creating his plan, I don't expect him to not only know all the details about Edmonton's transit and about it's hospitals and various other infrastructure projects.

 

[Platinum107]

Reese from RM Transit releases a crayoning video for Edmonton!

I just saw this! Interesting to see his takes on our transit system as an outsider. While I don't agree with all of his ideas ofc, I never really considered branch lines as a real option for the LRT till now. I also totally agree with him about the "urban LRT" approach and how counterintuitive it is to actually getting people to use the train. Good video @Reecemartin !

Does @Reecemartin do any research before making videos about cities he does not live in & certainly does not use transit in?

I wish he would actually visit Edmonton before doing videos like this. I get having opinions, but he lives in Canada, and has been to every other major Canadian city to date (maybe not Calgary, I can't remember). Also, a slight nitpick, but I cringed at his pronunciation of Misericordia and the way he said 87 Avenue Northwest because nobody who's been here would add the "Northwest" like that. I've seen videos about the Netherlands that he's done where he makes an effort to pronounce things correctly. It's also very clear he isn't looking that closely at Edmonton because, no, this city doesn't have a lot of people passionate about cities (the internet may make it seem otherwise) and the south hospital is not currently being built.

I don't quite understand where y'all are seeing the lack of research or him not "looking closely" at Edmonton? For someone who hasn't (afaik) visited here, and who probably wouldn't know much at all about Edmonton in other contexts, he clearly understands our situation with transit and what transit in Edmonton is like/how it can be improved. I don't think its fair to expect him to present native-level knowledge about Edmonton's features and best path forward for transit. These are just his ideas, after all.

 

[CplKlinger]

I never really considered branch lines as a real option for the LRT till now.

You should take a look at the documents I posted above, a lot of the plants in there considered branch lines—down to station location and other specific details.

 

[Kosy123]

Yeah, the "not being a local" thing is evident with some of his statements. Either way, this sort of publicity is good publicity no matter what, even if it is with a niche audience.

If I had Katz money, or even was a multi-millionaire, I'd fly him out and other urbanist Youtubers here to make videos lol

 

[The_Cat]

At least Reecemartin is initiating some dialogue on the future of mass transit in the Edmonton area.

 

[EdwardEdm]

I found this video to be underwhelming.

I'm not sure how much research he did, or what sources he used, but, a lot of what he proposes is already out there, in particular laid out in the Mass Transit Plan for 1.25 Million People.

His comments on the Blatchford extension using just a contact wire, and therefore can only support slower speeds is... interesting. The wire is still auto tensioned, and the pole spacing is actually closer together than anywhere else on the system. I wouldn't be surprised if that wire can support 70 km/ h operation. Further, our underground section he praises also use a single contact wire for the vast majority of the tunnel network. We certainly do not have full blown catenary through the majority of the tunnels. The contact wire is suspend from steady arms at frequent intervals. The spacing is closer than poles on the surface. This is where I find it interesting that while we don't use catenary on the Blatchford extension, we have that closer pole spacing. Just like our contact wire in the tunnels.
One of the purposes of catenary is that the message cable is able to carry more current than the the contact wire, and so through equalization bonds, it is able to ensure there is enough current in the contact wire, regardless of the distance from the substation. In the tunnels, the messenger cable is still there (and, indeed, the addition of the parallel messenger wire back in the early 2010's), but, it has nothing to do with suspending the contact wire. On the Blatchford extension, there are more frequent substation feeds directly to the wire. In a sense, the messenger cables power carrying capacity has been placed underground. The trolleybuses had some sections with underground feeder cables, although for the most part, along any trolleybus line if you looked at one side of the street you'd see a pair of black cables which were the feeders from the substation. In some places you could see multiple pairs of cables which were feeding different circuits.
Anyways, a swing and a miss trying to suggest planners purposely slowed down the Blatchford extension with their choice of OCS. The OCS choice is probably more so related to making it look "cleaner" although with the more frequent poles, I don't know if it achieves that.

I don't know how he decided to route the Valley Line down 66 St, rather than 50 St. The plan has always been 50 St. Doesn't seem logical to not continue to use the Mill Woods stop, and associated bus terminal. Additionally, he suggests there's already been consideration for LRT along 66 St because of the grassy strip. I guess he missed the part where 66 St narrows south 23 Ave to a single lane in each direction. I'm sure that grassy RoW has always been intended for when 66 St ends up being widened. Anyone remember how 91 St narrowed in the same way just south of 23 Ave?

As I noted at the start, a lot of what he is proposing is already planned, so it's nothing new. The Mass Transit for 1.25 Million People plan includes semi exclusive transit along Whyte Ave to WEM, as well as the Terwillegar route. It also identifies a rapid route along 137 Ave.
St. Albert has already done planning for a LRT alignment.

167 Ave- Why? Why not 137 Ave or 144 Ave? The 167 Ave corridors is very low density. 137 Ave already has an existing crosstown bus route and is planned for a rapid route until the 1.25 million mass transit plan. Was it just because his crayon can make an easy connection at Gorman? 167 Ave doesn't seem like good planning if you are looking into factors like existing transit and density. 137 Ave, being an older section of the City, is certainly more likely to see redevelopment with high density.

Sherwood Park- That extension is just insanity. It's a lot of track through industrial areas which would be poor trip generators. It will also end up being a longer trip than existing bus services. If LRT is being extended to Sherwood Park, the only thing that really makes sense is a branch off of the Valley Line. And even then, I think for the time being, and likely for a long time to come buses will be sufficient. I guess he figures high floor = suburban, hence why he choose a branch off of the high floor line. There's nothing to say that the low floor line can't do suburban. Indeed, look at the long stretch between Woodvale, Davies, and Avonmore.

There are some things I do agree with, like maximizing the Downtown tunnel. I am generally not a fan of this urban LRT concept (although, I am quite alright with VLSE. Less so with the VLW). A diesel (or hydrogen or battery) line to Fort Saskatchewan is better than proposing LRT out there (I wonder if he knows that Fort Saskatchewan dropped their bus service to Edmonton, and is now going via Strathcona County?)
I guess to the average person who isn't aware of what planning is going on, this video might seem forward thinking, but, I can't take it seriously when lines like 167 Ave or that routing to Sherwood Park are suggested.

 

[Edmcowboy11]

Some of the selections he made for route options can always be and would be scrutinized if actually addressed. What like about the video is how it points out that despite moving in the right direction on development, the city needs to be aggressively proactive in ideas, planning and actual construction.
I hope this video is seen by many of our councilors in hopes that the see it as a good thing for continued, smart, expedited expansion.

 

[IanO]

Canadian Transit Thread II - Page 20 - SkyscraperPage Forum

 

[Reecemartin]

I figured since I got @'d I would come here and reply. I was surprised that there was so much negative reaction to the video I made (and spent quite a bit of time on) if I'm honest, but I guess I figured it would be more openly received - after all I've made ones with much more dramatic suggestions for larger Canadian cities with more established transit systems.

Does @Reecemartin do any research before making videos about cities he does not live in & certainly does not use transit in?

I wish he would actually visit Edmonton before doing videos like this. I get having opinions, but he lives in Canada, and has been to every other major Canadian city to date (maybe not Calgary, I can't remember). Also, a slight nitpick, but I cringed at his pronunciation of Misericordia and the way he said 87 Avenue Northwest because nobody who's been here would add the "Northwest" like that. I've seen videos about the Netherlands that he's done where he makes an effort to pronounce things correctly. It's also very clear he isn't looking that closely at Edmonton because, no, this city doesn't have a lot of people passionate about cities (the internet may make it seem otherwise) and the south hospital is not currently being built.

I'll just say to this that I find the assertion that I just make a video with 0 research difficult to respond to. I have made videos about cities all around the world - including ones that I think many people are not even aware of having large transit networks like Bangkok, Valencia, and Santiago - but, its assumed that I draw the line at researching Edmonton when I make a video? I have family in Edmonton and I'm here on the local urban forum and have been for years - I'm just not sure where the sense that I just looked at a map and started drawing came from.

When you make videos about cities in numerous countries and you are constantly "context switching" or whatever sometimes you may not say the street names the way locals do - a lot of cities have street names with the format "X northwest" etc., simply spending time in the city is not going to make it so you forever pronounce things the local way.

With regard to there not being passionate people - there's loads of people on here, and loads of people I've met IRL, I guess my idea of a lot isn't . . . correct?

I found this video to be underwhelming.

I'm not sure how much research he did, or what sources he used, but, a lot of what he proposes is already out there, in particular laid out in the Mass Transit Plan for 1.25 Million People.

I don't think the point of the video was to suggest that every idea that is currently proposed is bad!

His comments on the Blatchford extension using just a contact wire, and therefore can only support slower speeds is... interesting. The wire is still auto tensioned, and the pole spacing is actually closer together than anywhere else on the system. I wouldn't be surprised if that wire can support 70 km/ h operation.

I have an old friend who works on the catenary who has suggested otherwise, and based on the engineers I've talked to this is not the case - speed limit is much lower than that, the poles being closer together is inherent to the design.

Further, our underground section he praises also use a single contact wire for the vast majority of the tunnel network. We certainly do not have full blown catenary through the majority of the tunnels.

Using different contact in tunnels is common, I haven't looked at it in the tunnel in quite some time, but I assumed it was semi-rigid (which of course still has a "wire") which is common around the world. Lower speeds are usually ok in a city centre tunnel with fairly tight spacings, and mounting is typically much more rigid.

Anyways, a swing and a miss trying to suggest planners purposely slowed down the Blatchford extension with their choice of OCS. The OCS choice is probably more so related to making it look "cleaner" although with the more frequent poles, I don't know if it achieves that.

The OCS definitely supports lower speeds without a support wire, the frequency of poles does not mitigate for that. Single wire design is common for low speed trams and depots, without a support wire you are going to have lower allowable speeds - "At the other end of the scale, a tram depot may have just a single wire hung directly from insulated supports. As a pantograph passes along it, the wire can be seen to rise and fall." - the amount of tensioning possible through the supports is limited (it tends to largely come from the panto). Some good reading for those interested here:

https://www.arema.org/files/pubs/pgre/PGChapter9.pdf

http://www.railway-technical.com/infrastructure/electric-traction-power.html (Piers Connor is great)

Sherwood Park- That extension is just insanity. It's a lot of track through industrial areas which would be poor trip generators. It will also end up being a longer trip than existing bus services. If LRT is being extended to Sherwood Park, the only thing that really makes sense is a branch off of the Valley Line. And even then, I think for the time being, and likely for a long time to come buses will be sufficient. I guess he figures high floor = suburban, hence why he choose a branch off of the high floor line. There's nothing to say that the low floor line can't do suburban. Indeed, look at the long stretch between Woodvale, Davies, and Avonmore.

Most land west of Sherwood park is industrial so you're going to be going past industry no matter what. Going from the south means not being able to have as fast of a right of way (or as nice of one for that matter) for the rest of the trip.

The high floor trains are indeed better suited for suburban trips - but that's not an arbitrary thing, the trains are literally capable of higher speeds (especially with upgraded suspension) and are substantially higher capacity, which I think are both pretty important considerations for any suburban service. Routing off of the rail row on the Capital Line is also very nice because it has probably the most flexibility and long term potential capacity of any above ground section of rail on the network.

A diesel (or hydrogen or battery) line to Fort Saskatchewan is better than proposing LRT out there (I wonder if he knows that Fort Saskatchewan dropped their bus service to Edmonton, and is now going via Strathcona County?)

Yes I am aware, I have a friend who did a bunch of planning work for Fort Sask. if Edmonton could get the price to build "LRT" down a single tracked line out there would not be unprecedented globally, loads of places in Europe have electric rail in similar contexts.

-------------------------------------------

I am sorry that folks seem to think I came in scattershot and without enough local knowledge (or I guess I didn't communicate that I am familiar with Edmonton, I've even made a number of videos on the region in the past). I'll stick to Toronto and Vancouver going forward. Ciao.

 

[IanO]

^Please don't; your insights and commitment to reporting transit stories across Canada (and beyond) are fantastic.

 

[Barnaby]

I'll stick to Toronto and Vancouver going forward. Ciao.

Please don't. I agreed with most of the video. I thought it was good.

 

[erudyk_29]

I figured since I got @'d I would come here and reply. I was surprised that there was so much negative reaction to the video I made (and spent quite a bit of time on) if I'm honest, but I guess I figured it would be more openly received - after all I've made ones with much more dramatic suggestions for larger Canadian cities with more established transit systems.



I'll just say to this that I find the assertion that I just make a video with 0 research difficult to respond to. I have made videos about cities all around the world - including ones that I think many people are not even aware of having large transit networks like Bangkok, Valencia, and Santiago - but, its assumed that I draw the line at researching Edmonton when I make a video? I have family in Edmonton and I'm here on the local urban forum and have been for years - I'm just not sure where the sense that I just looked at a map and started drawing came from.

When you make videos about cities in numerous countries and you are constantly "context switching" or whatever sometimes you may not say the street names the way locals do - a lot of cities have street names with the format "X northwest" etc., simply spending time in the city is not going to make it so you forever pronounce things the local way.

With regard to there not being passionate people - there's loads of people on here, and loads of people I've met IRL, I guess my idea of a lot isn't . . . correct?



I don't think the point of the video was to suggest that every idea that is currently proposed is bad!



I have an old friend who works on the catenary who has suggested otherwise, and based on the engineers I've talked to this is not the case - speed limit is much lower than that, the poles being closer together is inherent to the design.



Using different contact in tunnels is common, I haven't looked at it in the tunnel in quite some time, but I assumed it was semi-rigid (which of course still has a "wire") which is common around the world. Lower speeds are usually ok in a city centre tunnel with fairly tight spacings, and mounting is typically much more rigid.



The OCS definitely supports lower speeds without a support wire, the frequency of poles does not mitigate for that. Single wire design is common for low speed trams and depots, without a support wire you are going to have lower allowable speeds - "At the other end of the scale, a tram depot may have just a single wire hung directly from insulated supports. As a pantograph passes along it, the wire can be seen to rise and fall." - the amount of tensioning possible through the supports is limited (it tends to largely come from the panto). Some good reading for those interested here:

https://www.arema.org/files/pubs/pgre/PGChapter9.pdf

http://www.railway-technical.com/infrastructure/electric-traction-power.html (Piers Connor is great)



Most land west of Sherwood park is industrial so you're going to be going past industry no matter what. Going from the south means not being able to have as fast of a right of way (or as nice of one for that matter) for the rest of the trip.

The high floor trains are indeed better suited for suburban trips - but that's not an arbitrary thing, the trains are literally capable of higher speeds (especially with upgraded suspension) and are substantially higher capacity, which I think are both pretty important considerations for any suburban service. Routing off of the rail row on the Capital Line is also very nice because it has probably the most flexibility and long term potential capacity of any above ground section of rail on the network.



Yes I am aware, I have a friend who did a bunch of planning work for Fort Sask. if Edmonton could get the price to build "LRT" down a single tracked line out there would not be unprecedented globally, loads of places in Europe have electric rail in similar contexts.

-------------------------------------------

I am sorry that folks seem to think I came in scattershot and without enough local knowledge (or I guess I didn't communicate that I am familiar with Edmonton, I've even made a number of videos on the region in the past). I'll stick to Toronto and Vancouver going forward. Ciao.

^Please don't; your insights and commitment to reporting transit stories across Canada (and beyond) are fantastic.

Agreed, don't listen to the haters. A lot of people on this site don't think a lot before posting, I've experienced this before when I've posted my own work here in the past.

 

[TAS]

I cringed at his pronunciation of Misericordia

I cringed reading this comment

 

[dunno]

^ Good for you @TAS. I think if someone can make an effort to research how to pronounce Dutch placenames, they can make an effort to pronounce words that are used in many places in the Anglosphere. Again, I realize it's a minor nitpick, and made that perfectly clear. You can do with that what you want.

I figured since I got @'d I would come here and reply. I was surprised that there was so much negative reaction to the video I made (and spent quite a bit of time on) if I'm honest, but I guess I figured it would be more openly received - after all I've made ones with much more dramatic suggestions for larger Canadian cities with more established transit systems.



I'll just say to this that I find the assertion that I just make a video with 0 research difficult to respond to. I have made videos about cities all around the world - including ones that I think many people are not even aware of having large transit networks like Bangkok, Valencia, and Santiago - but, its assumed that I draw the line at researching Edmonton when I make a video? I have family in Edmonton and I'm here on the local urban forum and have been for years - I'm just not sure where the sense that I just looked at a map and started drawing came from.

When you make videos about cities in numerous countries and you are constantly "context switching" or whatever sometimes you may not say the street names the way locals do - a lot of cities have street names with the format "X northwest" etc., simply spending time in the city is not going to make it so you forever pronounce things the local way.

With regard to there not being passionate people - there's loads of people on here, and loads of people I've met IRL, I guess my idea of a lot isn't . . . correct?



I don't think the point of the video was to suggest that every idea that is currently proposed is bad!



I have an old friend who works on the catenary who has suggested otherwise, and based on the engineers I've talked to this is not the case - speed limit is much lower than that, the poles being closer together is inherent to the design.



Using different contact in tunnels is common, I haven't looked at it in the tunnel in quite some time, but I assumed it was semi-rigid (which of course still has a "wire") which is common around the world. Lower speeds are usually ok in a city centre tunnel with fairly tight spacings, and mounting is typically much more rigid.



The OCS definitely supports lower speeds without a support wire, the frequency of poles does not mitigate for that. Single wire design is common for low speed trams and depots, without a support wire you are going to have lower allowable speeds - "At the other end of the scale, a tram depot may have just a single wire hung directly from insulated supports. As a pantograph passes along it, the wire can be seen to rise and fall." - the amount of tensioning possible through the supports is limited (it tends to largely come from the panto). Some good reading for those interested here:

https://www.arema.org/files/pubs/pgre/PGChapter9.pdf

http://www.railway-technical.com/infrastructure/electric-traction-power.html (Piers Connor is great)



Most land west of Sherwood park is industrial so you're going to be going past industry no matter what. Going from the south means not being able to have as fast of a right of way (or as nice of one for that matter) for the rest of the trip.

The high floor trains are indeed better suited for suburban trips - but that's not an arbitrary thing, the trains are literally capable of higher speeds (especially with upgraded suspension) and are substantially higher capacity, which I think are both pretty important considerations for any suburban service. Routing off of the rail row on the Capital Line is also very nice because it has probably the most flexibility and long term potential capacity of any above ground section of rail on the network.



Yes I am aware, I have a friend who did a bunch of planning work for Fort Sask. if Edmonton could get the price to build "LRT" down a single tracked line out there would not be unprecedented globally, loads of places in Europe have electric rail in similar contexts.

-------------------------------------------

I am sorry that folks seem to think I came in scattershot and without enough local knowledge (or I guess I didn't communicate that I am familiar with Edmonton, I've even made a number of videos on the region in the past). I'll stick to Toronto and Vancouver going forward. Ciao.

I never said there aren't people passionate about cities in Edmonton. But, this city is by and large a suburban one, where people would rather go to BP's than head Downtown, where the best pedestrian activity is always at the malls, etc. Knowing people who buck that trend doesn't make that any less so.

I also never said that you didn't do any research. I said you're not looking very closely because there are things that you missed that aren't exactly obscure information. Including the South Hospital, or, as @EdwardEdm pointed out, the Valley Line alignment past Mill Woods Town Centre. I get that mistakes do happen - we're all human - but I found it frustrating when considering how often well-researched your videos are.

Anyway, I'd recommend an actual visit to Edmonton like you've done other Canadian cities. My biggest gripe with your videos is that you are coming in as an armchair critic when I'd love to see you not try and analyze every single metro system in the world and instead have a more qualitative approach where you really get to know systems that you get a chance to visit because you can only glean so much online.

Obviously, I'm in the minority here, and that's fine. At the end of the day I'm just another person on the Internet, you don't need to take what I say seriously.

Agreed, don't listen to the haters. A lot of people on this site don't think a lot before posting, I've experienced this before when I've posted my own work here in the past.

I definitely did put thought into my post, but thanks?

I think it's important to realize that criticism doesn't have to be a bad thing. I'm noticing a trend where the critics to Reece's video are being pushed back against to make him feel better. And Reece seems to be taking this personally (though I could be mistaken). My criticisms were not a personal attack, and were meant to challenge him to make better videos about Edmonton in the future. I'm not a hater of his, but did have constructive criticism for him. This forum hates criticism for whatever reason, unless something is so obviously bad, when it doesn't have to be such a negative thing.