Holy moly. OK, I'm just going to chime in as an out-of-towner but good grief, I cannot believe how disappointed I am with the discussion taking place here. If this is the mentality by which Edmontonians are going to think about transit projects, forget about Valley Line SE ever getting to 30,000 riders a day let alone meeting that 2044 target.
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.
In particular, this is honestly the most terrible take I've read all day amongst the many other problematic ones I see above. Y'all can justify big elevated SkyTrain-like guideway segments but will not justify crossing gates due to some apparent visual aesthetic. Make it make sense?
I can't believe that this city is launching a new premium service in the wake of an event (COVID-19) that has placed transit systems around the world in financial crisis (also in large part due to the shift in commuting landscape with work-from-home) and there are people trivializing valuable speed and reliability measures that increase ridership. If you don't start to pivot, you will end up turning into the Toronto TTC and end up with similar cuts to services, all-day overcrowding, and crumbling infrastructure that doesn't get maintained.
Crossing arms are a relatively SMALL investment in tools that ensure the public is reminded that they are interfacing with a RAILWAY, so that trains can run at higher speed with higher reliability and fewer mishaps. They are used not just in other LRT systems within Canada (including low-floor ones like Kitchener-Waterloo), but worldwide to great success. Frankly, I don't know of any instance EVER, where someone has actually complained that crossing gates "impact on the landscape" or are "inferior" at "integrating" with the community. This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. There are even multiple cities that have found value in adding crossing arms and gates to bus rapid transitways (Los Angeles and Miami-Dade are both doing this). So if this is a "hill you're willing to die on", I won't stop you.
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.
Think what you want, but as far as I'm aware the insistence on designing every single surface portion of the Valley Line to be run like a tramway is hurting and not helping. It is costing you speed, reliability, ridership, fare revenue, and the long-term viability of sustaining the transit system when ridership drops. The Valley Line south of Davies Station is clearly designed and built as a railway and
should be run as one. It also runs in a part of the city (and at a distance from the city centre) that potential riders of the line, especially those coming in from other connecting transit, would almost certainly value the highest speed that the infrastructure will allow.
This is about maximizing your billion+ dollar investment, and personally, I would be happy to write to ministers (and organize others to do the same) about withholding future transit funding from Edmonton projects if this is the way you're going to continue planning them.
Yes, this is a threat.
There are plenty of other cities in Canada in transit crisis (including mine) that need infrastructure money now.
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.
I really don't like this idea. Yeah, land use sucks whatever, but a station is a station, especially one that isn't too close to another one. People who walk up to it (people
do live within walking distance!) should be able to expect that trains will regularly stop there.
But, I also think this is a perfect way to highlight how crossing gates and barriers (Calgary style) would be beneficial. They would allow a train to enter the station at full speed, have an extra short dwell (similar to Sea Island Centre Station in Vancouver), then exit the station at full speed, safely, and without ever slowing for the access crossings. And no one would be talking about skipping the stop due to a lack of riders.