[TravellingChris]

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.
View attachment 395267
Here's some more data, plus a visualization in case you're more of a visual person.
View attachment 395269
View attachment 395268

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:
View attachment 395277View attachment 395278
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?

Again, the numbers rest on the assumptions that potential passengers (the car drivers of today) will see sufficient advantages in riding the Valley Line LRVs that they don't currently see in buses, that will make them willing to forsake the car and overlook the many drawbacks of the line: the undersized shelters and bitterly cold platforms, the lack of signal priority at every intersection, the inevitable delays from the many accidents (consider the train wreck waiting to happen at 82 and 83, where the line not only crosses the street at grade but wanders from the median to the west side, meaning that drivers from all directions will have to stop--oh, and there will be no crossing gates). The projected numbers are lovely IF they translate into actual footfall in the stations, I mean bus shelters on the Valley Line.

The Metro Line projections are a little unfair given that the short NAIT platform means only three car trains can be used, and the lengthy headways are due in large part to the mess of the signalling system that City planners themselves chose, and the fact that the line was built with so many curves and grade crossings that it cannot run at the trains' normal speed.

I note that in Option A the Capital Line still has almost double the passenger capacity of Valley Line, though. Which ties into my original point: I never suggested that buses were the proper substitute for the Valley Line. I believe the Valley Line should have been done similarly and used the same technology as the Capital Line. The point about buses is that we are getting a system that has most of the disadvantages of the bus system we already have, and few to none of the advantages of high floor LRT. If that's what we wanted, then we could have thrown up another hangar and bought a bunch more buses from New Flyer and been done with it long ago.

 

[CplKlinger]

the undersized shelters and bitterly cold platforms, the lack of signal priority at every intersection, the inevitable delays from the many accidents (consider the train wreck waiting to happen at 82 and 83, where the line not only crosses the street at grade but wanders from the median to the west side, meaning that drivers from all directions will have to stop--oh, and there will be no crossing gates). The projected numbers are lovely IF they translate into actual footfall in the stations, I mean bus shelters on the Valley Line.

The Metro Line projections are a little unfair given that the short NAIT platform means only three car trains can be used, and the lengthy headways are due in large part to the mess of the signalling system that City planners themselves chose, and the fact that the line was built with so many curves and grade crossings that it cannot run at the trains' normal speed.

I note that in Option A the Capital Line still has almost double the passenger capacity of Valley Line, though. Which ties into my original point: I never suggested that buses were the proper substitute for the Valley Line. I believe the Valley Line should have been done similarly and used the same technology as the Capital Line. The point about buses is that we are getting a system that has most of the disadvantages of the bus system we already have, and few to none of the advantages of high floor LRT. If that's what we wanted, then we could have thrown up another hangar and bought a bunch more buses from New Flyer and been done with it long ago.

Parts of the Capital Line also have "undersized shelters and bitterly cold platforms" - McKernan/Belgravia's shelter doesn't even have doors, let alone adequate heating. At least the Valley Line shelters are made with winter in mind. And we shouldn't hold back from potentially good design choices just because drivers might mess up; we had streetcars going down the middle of Whyte Ave and Jasper Ave for decades, I'm sure drivers can learn to live with sharing a few intersections.

Actually, ALL models assume that the permanent NAIT station is built, and thus the line can handle five-car trains. As well, scenario B actually assumed that the Metro Line was extended to Castle Downs. As I said before, the signal system is not an issue anymore; it is the same type as is used on the Capital Line, and has been for a number of months now. The capacity issues lie with the 114/University Ave intersection, and the downtown tunnels (which is explained in the report I linked above). And what's your point about the "curves and at grade crossings"? The Valley Line trains aren't going their full speeds either, so there's no point in comparing "what ifs" that can't be addressed in the short term.

The Capital Line also has double the Metro Line load, even in option B where the Metro Line extends to Castle Downs. And that ties back to my original point: You're comparing apples and oranges here; a line that gets people from one end to the other quickly, compared to one that's meant to holistically connect neighbourhoods. And again, the low floor system has benefits that set it apart from both the high floor trains and our bus network. So it's not the same as slapping a bunch of buses down there (plus hiring hundreds of additional staff and building a lot of the same core infrastructure like busways and stops); they're fundamentally different.

I mean, you even said that the numbers would be great if they are achieved. That means the problem is with how it's perceived instead of how it actually performs, right? Because after all, it doesn't become more efficient at moving people just because they believe in it enough. If the things you mentioned, like stopping at red lights, are actually so terrible for its performance, surely that would be reflected in the numbers and it'd be closer to the BRT projections?

 

[Foolworm]

The proposed stopgap solution for the bottleneck at University Ave is to run additional bus service along 114 Ave. Nobody thinks there is going to be additional grade separation there anytime soon.

 

[TravellingChris]

The proposed stopgap solution for the bottleneck at University Ave is to run additional bus service along 114 Ave. Nobody thinks there is going to be additional grade separation there anytime soon.

Ah yes...the brilliance of municipal government. The solution for traffic congestion on a given roadway is...to add even more vehicles. Very large ones.

 

[The_Cat]

The buses aren’t perfect, but they can serve stops on 111 Street like Lendrum or Greenwood.

 

[The_Cat]

Also, when all the planning of the LRT was done on 114 Street (around 2000) the population of Edmonton was around 700,000. Today, it’s over one million, with much of the growth around South Edmonton.

 

[CplKlinger]

Nobody thinks there is going to be additional grade separation there anytime soon.

Yes, which is why I said "so there's no point in comparing "what ifs" that can't be addressed in the short term."

We can complain about the design of thr Metro Line all we want, but we're stuck with it for the next few decades at least so it's not productive to say "it would be better than the Valley Line if..."

 

[Foolworm]

Yes, which is why I said "so there's no point in comparing "what ifs" that can't be addressed in the short term."

We can complain about the design of thr Metro Line all we want, but we're stuck with it for the next few decades at least so it's not productive to say "it would be better than the Valley Line if..."

This is the Capital line though so at least buses on 114 Ave can run parallel to the LRT. Metro line literally competes with buses at intersections unless they take 109 St instead.

I disagree about no point in comparing 'what-ifs' -- it would make for very boring discussions otherwise.

 

[NateTheUrbanist]

Big news!

Link to Tweet.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1519024504885760001

 

[CplKlinger]

Big news!


View attachment 396014

Link to Tweet.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1519024504885760001

That's wonderful to hear; Century Park — from what I heard pre-pandemic — is not an ideal terminus. I think the overcrowded staircases draw the most complaints? Aside from parking of course haha. Hopefully that means next in line will be the Metro Line to Castle Downs.

 

[Foolworm]

I thought the Feds already announced their portion of funding last year? Or was that just an election promise?

 

[IanO]

It was previously announced and an RFQ out (I believe ) and is now close to being tendered.

 

[Airboy]

some firms are already on board. the actually construction is now up.

 

[superelevation]

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.'"

Ok, but Vancouver has all high floor metro that has a higher average speed than the Edmonton LRT, so the suggestion that high floor is disconnected from TOD is silly. The same is true in numerous other places too. Low floor trains seem nice, but they do have a niche that we don't appreciate in NA - better for short hop urban services than for long distance, high speed, high capacity - they play a similar albeit higher capacity role to a bus.

 

[IanO]

City of Edmonton - LRT Capital Line South Expansion Design-Build - RFQ
The City of Edmonton

Posted On: 9 Jun 2022
Open for bidding on: 9 Jun 2022
Response Deadline: 26 Aug 2022 10:59 PM PDT​

Posting Summary
The work includes, but not limited to, but not limited to, construction of a 4.5-km light-rail extension south from Century Park station (the current terminus) to the new Ellerslie station. The project will include two new permanent LRT stations, a new operations and maintenance facility (OMF), and integration with and expansion of the Heritage Valley Park and Ride facility and transit centre.

City of Edmonton - LRT Capital Line South Expansion Design-Build - RFQ

service.ariba.com