The_Cat
Senior Member
If Londonderry ever chooses to build high density residential, this could be a possibility.
|
|
|
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
The_Cat
Senior Member
I think there might be more express bus options available once the 66 Street Bridge crosses the Yellowhead. and Fort Road is widened. For example, there could be a bus from the Coliseum Station to Londonderry and points in NE Edmonton.
Platinum107
Senior Member
I agree that doing minor expansions and branches like this could give us a pretty great system! Edmonton has a huge asset that helps us do this, being the downtown tunnel, It's just that at some point (in the near future) the signaling system on this section in particular will have to be switched to CTC instead of fixed block to accommodate all of the trains during peak service. Even with just the Capital and Metro lines my train yesterday had to slow down or even stop several times because (I presume that) it came to a block with a train already in it.
EdwardEdm
Active Member
The Capital Line already uses CTC, which includes components like the automatic block signals and powered switches that can be operated from the centralized control center as well as in the field.
The next step to decrease headways would be smaller block sizes. There are systems out there running 90 second headways, although that's generally subway/ metro type systems.
I don't think what we need are branches off of the Capital Line in the northeast. This isn't a streetcar system.
Windermere
Active Member
Branches do not equate to streetcars. Both the Canada Line and Expo Line in Vancouver have branches.
Edmcowboy11
Senior Member
It was brought up again on the Valley Line thread, but I think it's worth mentioning again, I think there should be thoughts of building a brand new station just north east of 95st. The station could be similar in scale to most of the Valley Line stations with exception of course of the height of the station. This would serve the area South and Little Italy to the north quite well I think.
chrisvazquez7
Active Member
100% agree. This station should take priority over any other infill stations on the network.
TravellingChris
Active Member
Although I think the City is making some big mistakes with the Valley Line, I have to give them top marks on the Capital Line South expansion. It's being done right, with a tunnel crossing at 23 Avenue. I also like the fact that the design maintains crossing gates at key intersections (like 9 Avenue, just south of the Twin Brooks Station) so that the train is not waiting at traffic lights. I particularly like the elevated station at Ellerslie and the raised guideway across Ellerslie Road for future expansion. Nice to see a proper station is being built at this key point on the line. I also agree with the fact that the City is prioritizing this leg (over the Metro Line extension to Castle Downs) in order to get an additional OMF on the Capital Line.
But can we build a nicer crossing over the Henday than that truss bridge?
But can we build a nicer crossing over the Henday than that truss bridge?
IanO
Superstar
I love the idea of a truss... nod to old school training.
Glenco
Senior Member
The two systems serve different functions. The quasi metro system of the capital line promotes urb sprawl while the low floor urban vehicle system promotes infill and densification.
EdmTrekker
Senior Member
Better road access from Clarview LRT for BRT to Londonderry and points West. From Coliseum you would be stuck going on 118th Avenue and up 82 Street and that is traffic intense without wide roadways to create a BRT lanes.
TravellingChris
Active Member
No, the Capital Line does not promote urban sprawl. Remember, LRT lines in Edmonton tend to be built at a snail's pace--the lines to Mill Woods and WEM were promised in the 1980s and will be only 40 years late--and start running LONG after an area is developed. An occasional infill project or two may go up after the train is running, but nothing dramatic. Remember how the LRT at Belvedere was supposed to spark an urban village renaissance along Fort Road? That never happened. And how McKernan-Belgravia station was going to lead landowners to demolish all the nearby homes and build apartment condos? That also never happened. Even Century Park is taking forever to complete and the train has been running for 12 years.
Edmonton is not some petrostate in the Middle East, which runs transit lines out to the middle of nowhere in the hopes that something will soon be built nearby. Edmonton doesn't build LRT until forty or fifty years after residents have gotten tired of asking.
CplKlinger
Senior Member
I don't see how you're contradicting them here. The Capital Line primarily functions as a funnel from the suburbs to downtown, and back again. This is partly why, as you stated, we haven't seen much transit oriented development spring up around key hubs like Belvedere. Why live next to the station when you can instead live out in the suburbs and use the park-and-ride? Urban sprawl means building out onto new land, instead of building up on existing land. And you highlighted perfectly how we aren't seeing much progress in terms of building up on our existing land. It might be starting to change, especially in light of the new city plan, but it's not because of the Capital Line.
In contrast, the qualities about the Valley Line that you list as negative are actually seen as positive by some (myself included). The closer stops mean that more people along the line can access the LRT without needing to drive or take a bus, and the LRT can be a means to access other local destinations instead of only destinations that are across the city. Furthermore, the slower speeds don't make it "equal" to vehicles; trains still have the right of way, and partial priority at intersections. But the lack of crossing arms and bells, and the lower-scale nature of the Valley Line in general, mean that it's a more human scale like our old streetcars. I personally think it'll be nice that neighborhoods aren't completely bisected like they are along the Capital Line.
And sure, it might take you a bit longer to get to/from downtown than if it went at Capital Line speeds. But the neighborhoods along the way, and their amenities, would be much less accessible as well. Just think about the distance between Clareview and Belvedere, or South Campus and Southgate. How easily does the Capital Line facilitate shorter trips for accessing shops and services between these stops? The high floor style seeks to open up downtown and key transit hubs for riders, whereas the low floor style seeks to open up the entire right of way.
Don't take it from me. Here's what Gerry Wright, a former city official who was very instrumental in Edmonton getting the LRT to begin with, said about the original LRT line:
"'People had not yet learned what light rail transit actually can be,” Wright said in an oral history recorded in 1983. “We have, so far, built a standard subway system using an LRT vehicle, but we haven’t started to use the LRT vehicle to do LRT functions.'
What, according to Wright, were those functions?
'Centre-median, street-running, somewhat like an elaborate tramway mode,” he said. “The idea of light rail transit is that you have a vehicle that goes up steep hills, down steep hills, around sharp corners and can mix with other traffic.'"
Last edited:
TravellingChris
Active Member
But we already HAVE such vehicles, which mix with other traffic, go up hills, around sharp corners, make beep beep noises. They're called buses. Everything that is supposed to be such an advantage of the Valley Line--undersized shelters, low floor platforms, street running, more frequent stops than high floor LRT--is already a feature of, you know, the bus. And we already have lots of them, and already have bus garages and drivers...so why waste all this money on laying rail and buying pricey trams from Bombardier and Hyundai?
Why are we spending billions to set up a system that has really none of the advantages of high floor LRT--100% priority at cross-streets, stations that are adequate for passenger volumes and provide proper shelter from the elements in what is (despite climate change) still a winter city, imperviousness to traffic delays, a feeling that you are on a system that is an actual improvement on the bus?
I attended multiple open-house sessions when the Valley Line was engaging in "community consulations"--which was rather hilarious because the City wasn't actually listening and modifying anything based on feedback, but merely "presenting" what they intended to do, come hell or high water. I had conversations with planners and listened to all the blather about how this line was "superior" to what we already had. But then I asked if it had few to none of the advantages of high floor LRT and many of the drawbacks of a bus, then WHY AM I RIDING IT? They were stumped.
The whole point of the Valley Line was not to get bus riders onto trains--for crying out loud, they're already riding transit. The idea was supposedly to entice CAR drivers out of their vehicles. But if they find the bus unattractive enough that they already prefer to drive, it's doubtful they'll be lured onto the Valley Line Bus, I mean, LRT.
CplKlinger
Senior Member
A bus is fundamentally different from a low-floor LRT. Just like a bus is different from a streetcar. The numbers back this up. According to the mass transit report that came out a few months back, the low floor Valley Line will serve more passengers per hour than the high floor Metro Line.
"High Floor LRT (Capital and Metro Line): 150 passengers per car, and 750 passengers per 5-car train. With the Capital Line running at 5 min headway and Metro Line running at 10 min headway during the morning peak hour (for the 1.25 Million horizon), the total capacities will be 9,000 passengers per hour per direction (pphpd) for the Capital line and 4,500 passengers per hour per direction (pphpd) for the Metro Line. Low Floor LRT (Valley Line): 225 passengers per car, and 450 passengers per 2-car train. With 5 min headway during the morning peak hour, the total capacity for Valley Line will be 5,400 passengers per hour per direction."
Note that even a one-car valley line train will have much more capacity than even an articulated bus, which has - at best - half that capacity (our newest articulated buses have 53 seats, plus however many riders can fit standing up).
Here's a visualization; note that the Valley Line is projected to serve many more people than even the bus routes that are assumed to be on their own rights of way with priority signals.
Here's some more data, plus a visualization in case you're more of a visual person.
So, let's say you wanted a BRT system that had the capacity of the valley line. After all, it's basically the same thing, and we already have garages and buses, right? Wrong. Not only would we need to do the same sort of infrastructure work (minus track laying), and not only are buses much more inefficient because of their rubber tires, but we would not have nearly the right number of buses. Look at this fleet comparison:
If we need 34 LRVs for the Valley Line, and each can carry at least 2x the number of passengers, you'd be looking at at least an additional 64 buses plus the infrastructure to store them plus the staffing to operate and maintain them (and staffing is already one of transit's largest expenses). And you'd really need to double that figure, since the LRVs can run in two-car segments while buses cannot.
Would that end up being cheaper or more expensive than the LRT? Beats me, I'm not smart enough to crunch those numbers. But it would be a major undertaking nonetheless, for a system that is much less efficient than rail-based modes. Again though, one of our LRT's greatest champions (Gerry Wright) believed that the low-floor system was the 'true' LRT, so who am I to say that it's actually a glorified bus when the numbers back him up over 40 years later?
And no offence, but those planners probably weren't stumped by your questions. They were probably just annoyed that so many Edmontonians continue to view this as a black and white "high floor good low floor bad" scenario. By the time you spoke to them, they probably had dozens, if not hundreds, of people asking the same sort of "why isn't this zoomy like the Capital Line?" questions.
I mean sheesh, lots of transit systems around the world use low-floor rail vehicles too. By saying that this has "all the drawbacks of buses and none of the benefits of the Capital Line", you're blatantly ignoring the clear benefits that it has in terms of capacity and efficiencies compared to even BRT, and you're showing that you view this through a very specific lens. You want a system that can get you from point A to point B as quickly as possible. The city is trying something different that still moves people quickly, but tries to make neighbourhoods more connected and accessible instead of completely bisected. These are fundamentally different values. I'm not saying that one is better than the other, but you'll never be happy with it if you don't try to understand why speed isn't everything for everyone.
Last edited: