Barnaby
Active Member
Sure it is. The vehicle traffic, and longer construction times as a result of it are helping twist the knife. Why aren't the cars spending their dollars at these stores as they drive through, though?
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
TravellingChris
Active Member
I think people are just avoiding it. I know businesses at Jasper Gates Square are hurting in terms of traffic as well. Plus I think parking is an issue for businesses further west. It's difficult to get off SPR onto some of the north-south side streets because a previous project--"beautification" or "traffic calming" or whatever--closed off some of the street access onto SPR or made them one way. So you can't park on SPR and it's hard to pull off onto a side street, thus folks just keep on driving.
Look at what happened with Temptations. Their old location was knocked down to become a staging area for LRT construction, so they moved into a basement suite nearby (the old Giovanni Music building), but it's hidden behind all the construction on the south side of the street. IIRC the owner was looking to sell and concentrate on her new(er) location on 174 St.
Foolworm
Active Member
Pretty sure it would save more than five minutes, right now it's slower than traffic. Even on the guideways and in the tunnels it doesn't seem to go faster than 60.
Another possibility is to review stops (specifically Muttart) that are supposed to have minimal usage, and make it a seasonal / event-only stop. Otherwise it gets skipped.
My take is that crossing arms are just security theatre. Those things are not designed to stop vehicles anyway, if people don't obey signs they'll ignore the arms as well. The LRT has dedicated lanes the whole way through, drivers are supposed to treat it according to the rules of the road. We don't have crossing arms for cars either at every intersection, do we?
Up the limits. Bring on the speed.
TravellingChris
Active Member
Excellent idea. There's no point in having the trains stop at a station every time where there may be little to no use outside of specific events. IIRC there is an MTR line in Hong Kong where the trains only run on the loop to serve the station at the racecourse on racing days.
But you could make that argument about any safety device--crosswalks, flashing lights, traffic signals--they're all pointless because some people will ignore them. The point is that having them does provide an extra measure of safety even if it's not 100%. And as far as crossing gates, the idea is to keep the path of the trains clear to allow them to both operate at a higher speed and to help ensure travel times are consistent. If the trains have to operate at slower speeds because they face the constant risk of drivers turning in front of them, then that impacts journey times. The crossing gates exist on the Capital and Metro Lines to protect the train's right of way from sudden incursions when the train is in the area. Do they work 100%? No, of course not. Nothing does. But we don't do away with all safety devices just because some people might try to defeat them.
The other issue concerns legislation--is there anything in provincial law or municipal traffic bylaws that restricts the trains to a certain speed if the roads crossing the rail lines aren't protected by crossing gates?
ChazYEG
Senior Member
We already have traffic lights and ample signage. If people cannot stop, they shouldn't be allowed to keep their licenses.
Crossing arms are expensive, intrusive and beat the purpose of integrating the line with less impact on the landscape, while adding no real benefit.
Not having crossing arms is a hill I'm willing to die on.
Short answer is no. Not that I could find, at least, and I've gone through all I could find on the matter (which is a lot, unfortunately).
I agree with this, wholeheartedly. We could definitely have it running at least at 65 or 70km/h in some sections ( Quarters to Connor's Rd and Davies to Millwoods). Would basically negate any difference between doing the trip by car or LRT.
It'll be more of an issue on the VLW, as I don't really see many options of places to have higher speed, up until the start of the elevated section, and then while crossing the Anthony Henday up until the Lewis Farms TC. On the other hand, cars do travel a lot slower on this route, and have way more stops, so I still think it'll be better/just as good as driving, at least until WEM.
I like this idea. The only stop I see where it would make sense, though, is the one you mentioned (Muttart). I guess it could save a couple of minutes, if you consider deceleration, acceleration and the still time.
It could be an off-peak only (after 6pm and weekends), as it is a very popular summer destination, even on weekdays, leaving the peak hours (opening to 6pm) to a more streamlined route.
Again, I see it being harder to do on the future VLW, as it does cross some denser areas (DT and Oliver) and more destinations that don't have this "impermanence" and attract riders through most of the working hours (WEM, Mis, MacEwan), and all the other stops are actually aimed at attracting riders.
ChazYEG
Senior Member
Impopular take:
We need to align the expectations for the Valley Line and see it for what it is, and isn't:
It's NOT a high-speed, express subway-like line.
It IS a very efficient way of connecting into only major destinations to Downtown, but also allowing for fine-grained short trips between smaller nodes with an ease and reliability that busses don't have.
Treat it like a midway point between a metro-like line (which is what the high-floor LRT is) and a BRT. It has higher speed, capacity and reliability than a BRT (and, by extension, any bus), a gift of being in rails, but lower speed and capacity than a metro, or even the high floor LRT.
Especially in the case of the VLW, it was the only realistic way of bringing that side of the city into the system, as a high floor/high speed line would've been MUCH more expensive, because it would need to be either completely elevated, or underground. The costs would've been astronomical (which would put a lot of people against it), and I would bet money I don't have that the pushback from communities along the alignment would've been A LOT stronger than it was.
We need to align the expectations for the Valley Line and see it for what it is, and isn't:
It's NOT a high-speed, express subway-like line.
It IS a very efficient way of connecting into only major destinations to Downtown, but also allowing for fine-grained short trips between smaller nodes with an ease and reliability that busses don't have.
Treat it like a midway point between a metro-like line (which is what the high-floor LRT is) and a BRT. It has higher speed, capacity and reliability than a BRT (and, by extension, any bus), a gift of being in rails, but lower speed and capacity than a metro, or even the high floor LRT.
Especially in the case of the VLW, it was the only realistic way of bringing that side of the city into the system, as a high floor/high speed line would've been MUCH more expensive, because it would need to be either completely elevated, or underground. The costs would've been astronomical (which would put a lot of people against it), and I would bet money I don't have that the pushback from communities along the alignment would've been A LOT stronger than it was.
northlands
Senior Member
CBC FINALLY got some insider info on stuff that went wrong.
Some quick highlights:
-In 2019 they replaced a pier by Davies station. (To me this indicates they had concrete issues with the piers right off the bat and absolutely gambled that the rest would be OK rather than redoing)
-In 2019 part of the concrete on Tawatina bridge deck had to be replace
-Also in 2019 Quarters tunnel concrete wall lining had to be redone (and there was some sort of serious safety issue as well, which aligns with what I heard about the tunnel construction management)
-In 2018 they had to stop work on the Churchill connector after they accidentally cut rebar in the existing Churchill station
-2022 traction power substation didn’t meet the Canadian Electrical Code
-The City was concerned about TransEd’s financial situation to the point they contacted the Feds regarding it
Bit disappointing they didn’t delve deeper. Concrete issues especially plagued the project even worse than we thought. How TF does that happen?
Some quick highlights:
-In 2019 they replaced a pier by Davies station. (To me this indicates they had concrete issues with the piers right off the bat and absolutely gambled that the rest would be OK rather than redoing)
-In 2019 part of the concrete on Tawatina bridge deck had to be replace
-Also in 2019 Quarters tunnel concrete wall lining had to be redone (and there was some sort of serious safety issue as well, which aligns with what I heard about the tunnel construction management)
-In 2018 they had to stop work on the Churchill connector after they accidentally cut rebar in the existing Churchill station
-2022 traction power substation didn’t meet the Canadian Electrical Code
-The City was concerned about TransEd’s financial situation to the point they contacted the Feds regarding it
Bit disappointing they didn’t delve deeper. Concrete issues especially plagued the project even worse than we thought. How TF does that happen?
Last edited:
Seamusmuldrew
Active Member
I honestly think this is a pretty bad idea. First of all, the station is supposed to be the showcase of the line, and is the whole reason the line is called the "Valley" line. Not only access to the Muttart (which is open all week, not just seasonally or during events) but also access to the River Valley is one of the defining features of this line. Then we go ahead and restrict service immediately to shave off maybe 2 minutes. Second, imagine being a Cloverdale resident. You endure 7 years of construction to be told you have to hike up the hill to use the LRT instead of the station directly adjacent to your neighbourhood.
Friendmonton
Active Member
The idea is so bad and nonsensical, I actually laughed out loud.
Barnaby
Active Member
I also hate the idea. The Valley Line isn't rapid transit, and that's okay. I'm glad it was built the way it was, because I think central neighbourhoods will do more with it than sprawling neighbourhoods would do with rapid transit.
CplKlinger
Senior Member
Gerry Wright, one of the most influential figures for the introduction of LRT to Edmonton, said this in 1983: “People had not yet learned what light rail transit actually can be. 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. That is: centre-median, street-running, somewhat like an elaborate tramway mode. 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.”
While LRT is a spectrum and his word isn't gospel, he certainly had research to back up his views, having studied existing systems abroad and authored a paper advocating for a local LRT system: https://archive.org/details/lightrapidtransi00univ
I think his perspective is a good reminder that we're used to a specific form of LRT in Edmonton, but it's not *the* form of LRT; there are other styles too, and the Valley Line is one of them.
This sound clip (embedded in the article below) is where the quote comes from:
This article includes an interview with his daughter: https://transforming.edmonton.ca/ge...style-lrt-pays-tribute-to-edmonton-visionary/
While LRT is a spectrum and his word isn't gospel, he certainly had research to back up his views, having studied existing systems abroad and authored a paper advocating for a local LRT system: https://archive.org/details/lightrapidtransi00univ
I think his perspective is a good reminder that we're used to a specific form of LRT in Edmonton, but it's not *the* form of LRT; there are other styles too, and the Valley Line is one of them.
This sound clip (embedded in the article below) is where the quote comes from:
This article includes an interview with his daughter: https://transforming.edmonton.ca/ge...style-lrt-pays-tribute-to-edmonton-visionary/
Last edited:
dkazzed
Active Member
On the inaugural train, I briefly saw "Stop Requested" on the next stop monitor. Probably something used in Toronto where it's more of a streetcar?
Transit in Edmonton needs to be consistent though. We don't have the population density and distance to implement skip-stop services, nor should we have trains stop all the time at certain stops and require a request for other stops. I find for the most part that the signalling works really well with the stops. The only intersection that's been a consistent issue is 82 Ave, and I chalk it up as combining a street cross-over and a major intersection. Valley Line West seems to avoid this design.
Even then, from a commuting standpoint, Valley Line is time-competitive with driving. I don't recall it taking less than 30 minutes to drive from downtown to Mill Woods in rush hour. From a non-commuting standpoint, it connects where more people live with where more people want to go.
Transit in Edmonton needs to be consistent though. We don't have the population density and distance to implement skip-stop services, nor should we have trains stop all the time at certain stops and require a request for other stops. I find for the most part that the signalling works really well with the stops. The only intersection that's been a consistent issue is 82 Ave, and I chalk it up as combining a street cross-over and a major intersection. Valley Line West seems to avoid this design.
Even then, from a commuting standpoint, Valley Line is time-competitive with driving. I don't recall it taking less than 30 minutes to drive from downtown to Mill Woods in rush hour. From a non-commuting standpoint, it connects where more people live with where more people want to go.
Foolworm
Active Member
The difference being that signs, signals, and lights react pretty much instantaneously whereas crossing arms take time to deploy. The risk of drivers turning in front of trains exists regardless if there are arms or not because said arms are meant to break away -- they aren't barriers. If anything it just becomes another piece of flying debris. Ironically for Valley Line they had to install (reinstall) the boom arm on Connors Road for the reversible lane, and it's been broken at least half a dozen times since, I don't think it even works properly anymore.
Yes, I was looking at this from the opposite perspective: 2 minutes for every passenger, on every train, every day, for 30 years adds up to a lot of lost time. Weigh that against the couple hundred Cloverdale residents who were more concerned about losing 'their' river valley crossing than the actual LRT...
I don't think there is the option to request stops, either it's skipped or it's not. An interesting aside is that the DL MacDonald yard has sidings along the tracks and I've seen trains stop there to let workers on and off, so it's an 'optional' stop in that sense.
The_Cat
Senior Member
I looked at one Valley Line LRT video, and I saw that the trains stop at a station for an average of one minute.
J_gordo
Active Member
I always wondered why the tunnel took so long to finish, given that it was one of the first items to start construction in early 2017. Shame that more information isn’t released; but this is common for all infrastructure projects. For the west leg, and capital line south, many documents are private for various reasons, which I dislike seeing as though taxpayers are the ones paying for it.
I’m not sure I get the P3 hate regarding the delays though. If you look at the literature for risk, procurement, delivery, and cost, P3 is still superior to other procurement methods like DBF, CMAR, DBB etc. Plus the CBC article dismissed how design build finance would have likely resulted in the same outcome, with the same companies building the line. Take for example the construction management at risk (CMAR) procurement being used on the capital line south; The city is forced to bear extra costs to entice the market to bid on the project. Is that more efficient or cost effective, or risk averse than a P3 would be? Given the scale of the VLSE I’m not convinced that P3 is the sole issue. Of course, the city accepting the lowest bid (and a consortium with bombardier) raises issues with procurement. However, at the end of the day, I’m glad the project was procured as a P3, but I hope the city learns from this for other large infrastructure projects.