Personally think the 104 ave section should’ve been elevated in some sections, but again that’s purely for aesthetic factors rather than functional. The view on the train there would’ve been a great way of seeing downtown.

At the end of the day I’m happy that this is at least getting built instead of being stuck in a Green line boondoggle.
 
It can be difficult to determine the route for an LRT line, especially in an area that’s highly developed. Rail right-of-ways are common, with respect to Edmonton, Calgary and Vancouver.

I think Edmonton has made some good decisions keeping the LRT underground in.central areas of the city. Edmonton could improve on past decisions like 114 Street/University Avenue, but the elevated sections over Argyll and WEM will save a lot of time in traffic.
 
I'm just appreciative that half of the Valley Line is built and the other half is getting built.


We hit 11,000+ passengers per weekday. I'm hopeful the steady growth continues into next year.
1734699826673.png
 
Especially when you see the mess the UCP has created in Calgary. There's a fair chance city council will just deep six the whole green line. The UCP wants the CoC to assume all liabilities (cost overruns and legal liability) for the ridiculous alignment the UCP prefers. If I was mayor or a councillor in Calgary I would say hell no. I'm very happy things are much better up here and we got this thing moving before the UCP could f@@k it up.
 
I don't think the UCP would have had a problem with the design of Valley Line since it isn't terrible like the planned Green Line was. Attempting to use LRVs in a subway setting is ridiculous. If you're tunneling already, the capacity should be very high.

Edmonton has the advantage of having a very future proof subway, so running a grade level LRV system downtown is ideal for a host of reasons. Once you get out of central Edmonton, the trade-offs start to be more obvious, but the big issues have been mostly solved by grade separation at 170th/178th/West Ed.

I believe Edmonton will run into commuter/event capacity issues on the Valley Line West at some point, though. However, the quality of life improvements for central residents will probably outweigh the downsides, and running high floor on this VLW alignment would have been difficult or impossible.
 
They're probably going to run exclusively 2 car trains during peak hours, or extend the 5 min frequency to most of the day if they start running into issues with WEM tbh. WEM might end up being the busiest station in the Valley Line system after Churchill once it's up and running.
 
Barnaby said:
I don't think the UCP would have had a problem with the design of Valley Line since it isn't terrible like the planned Green Line was. Attempting to use LRVs in a subway setting is ridiculous. If you're tunneling already, the capacity should be very high.

Edmonton has the advantage of having a very future proof subway, so running a grade level LRV system downtown is ideal for a host of reasons. Once you get out of central Edmonton, the trade-offs start to be more obvious, but the big issues have been mostly solved by grade separation at 170th/178th/West Ed.

I believe Edmonton will run into commuter/event capacity issues on the Valley Line West at some point, though. However, the quality of life improvements for central residents will probably outweigh the downsides, and running high floor on this VLW alignment would have been difficult or impossible.
Click to expand...

not that uncommong tbh. Strasbourg in France has a tunnel for a low floor system. The UCP's proposed alignment would be hideously ugly, will make it impossible to ever extend the line north, and will actually cost more than tunnelling.
 
Didama said:
not that uncommong tbh. Strasbourg in France has a tunnel for a low floor system. The UCP's proposed alignment would be hideously ugly, will make it impossible to ever extend the line north, and will actually cost more than tunnelling.
Click to expand...
The artificially low cost estimate, with the city being liable for overruns, is so dumb. Come on UCP. Be better partners.

Thankful to not be Calgary currently.

West line will be awesome ❤️
 
I understand that it can be done, I just have the opinion that it shouldn't be. This isn't an endorsement or criticism of the UCP and CCC, I have expressed my opinion on the Green Line here prior to any hints of changes.

Back to VLW, WEM will make it more financially feasible to run higher frequency across the line as you'll have high commuter traffic in all directions. Also, due to the nature of retail staff scheduling, you'll see high ridership throughout the day to this destination. It'll be flatter than the routes into the downtown core, you won't get the extreme peaks.
 
thommyjo said:
The artificially low cost estimate, with the city being liable for overruns, is so dumb. Come on UCP. Be better partners.

Thankful to not be Calgary currently.

West line will be awesome ❤️
Click to expand...
The UCP want city council to cancel the Green Line, its their whole goal. They are so partisan that all they care about is destroying anything Nenshi had a role in building to make him look like a failure as mayor and therefore not a threat for premier. The fact it's needed infrastructure is immaterial, they don't like public transit much anyway.
 
SarcasticMarmot said:
The UCP want city council to cancel the Green Line, its their whole goal. They are so partisan that all they care about is destroying anything Nenshi had a role in building to make him look like a failure as mayor and therefore not a threat for premier. The fact it's needed infrastructure is immaterial, they don't like public transit much anyway.
Click to expand...

Their goal was to embarrass Nenshi, but this appears to have backfired now. The AECOM report makes it's pretty clear that the best (and most affordable) option is to tunnel, which is exactly what Nenshi has been saying for years. The report is redacted but based on what the city has said, and which portions the UCP chose to redact, the outcome is pretty obvious. The only remaining two options are now for CCC to vote against the UCP's alignment and the full green line is dead, or to vote for the UCP's alignment and take on all the liability related to cost overruns and legal liability. That would be grossly irresponsible for CCC to do, in my opinion, because the AECOM report's scope did not include things like impacts on property values, flooding, etc. And CCC will have to make a decision on this alignment before the end of March, which is the deadline for federal funding, which means those more detailed studies won't be done before CCC has to make this decision. It's a nightmare.
Either way, Nenshi can wash his hands of it and say the UCP messed this up, which they have.

But I know this is a thread about Edmonton's LRT system, so go Marigold! ;-)
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top