gonna fixate on something random in this article because it was a long day at work and that's just where we're at rn.
the U2s are 25m long and weigh 35000kg, or 1400kg/m (a metric i just invented for this). the SD160s weigh 41500kg, or 1660 kg/m. the Flexities weigh 65000 kg, or 1450kg/m, barely any heavier than the U2s, with a lot more equipment. I mostly did this just to make fun of the SD160s for being heavy and lame.
The article talks about interiors and user experience a bit, which i found most interesting. simple stuff, like coloured seats for priority users, open spaces for strollers and bikes (as opposed to just having more seating) and level boarding are gonna be great to see in action. I hope these trains are easier for wheelchairs to board. I never understood why the high-floor line platforms are 3 inches shorter than the one (1. singular. only one dimension to match up with) type of rolling stock we had when it was built. anyways. really looking forward to what is hopefully a more streamlined rider experience on these trains.
 
It's so exciting to see the progression of the line and I can't wait for the first leg to fully open.

I believed at the time (2017) and I still believe now that Council made an enormous mistake in not elevating the line and building a full-size station at Bonnie Doon. The 82 Avenue/83 Street intersection is a disaster waiting to happen. I think the right decision was made in elevating and building full-size stations at West Edmonton Mall and Misericordia on the west line...the same should have been done at Bonnie Doon. This was a case where a City Council, heading into an election, opted to "cheap out" and will be insulated from the fallout by the distance of years.

The City chose to "cheap out" on the Capital Line by running the line at-grade along 114 Street south of 87 Avenue instead of surfacing south of University Avenue, and now we have traffic backlogs at that intersection at peak times. The City made an even worse mistake by insisting that grade crossings would be fine and dandy on the Metro Line by Kingsway, and we all know how that turned out. I really believe we're going to be regretting not doing the Valley Line properly in the Bonnie Doon area.

It's a real missed opportunity because with the redevelopment of the Bonnie Doon site the little bus shelter that they have serving as the "Bonnie Doon LRT Stop" is going to be very quickly undersized. The renderings of the elevated Bonnie Doon station and guideways are sad to look at now because they would have been so much better than what we are getting.
 
Perhaps it's a dumb question, but at what point did Davies Station go from being a side-loading station to a centre platform station? Here's the original proposed design, direct from the City itself:
1650695879356.png

Yet in the video below released by TransEd, we see a centre loading platform with the tracks against the windows.
fb.watch

Onwards and Upwards! TransEd crews spent the past week high in the air testing trains on the elevated tracks north of Davies Station. Our drivers put... | By Edmonton Valley Line LRT - Facebook

Onwards and Upwards! TransEd crews spent the past week high in the air testing trains on the elevated tracks north of Davies Station. Our drivers put...
fb.watch fb.watch
 
TravellingChris said:
The City chose to "cheap out" on the Capital Line by running the line at-grade along 114 Street south of 87 Avenue instead of surfacing south of University Avenue
Click to expand...
I agree with you on most parts, but this wasn't the city's doing. As detailed in the June 13, 1993 article within this series, the city actually wanted to keep the LRT underground until it reached McKernan/Belgravia. Unfortunately, the Klein cuts made that impossible; there was simply no way to scrape together the $13 million needed to extend the tunnel an additional 600 meters. Interestignly, the article after it (June 15, 1993) points out that the University Hospital's President wanted it to stay underground until McKernan/Belgravia, because the at-grade line cut through hospital owned lands.

Also from the articles:

Provincial transportation grants to Edmonton

1990 – $70 per person

1991 – $50 per person

1992 – $40 per person

1993 – $25 per person
 
TravellingChris said:
Perhaps it's a dumb question, but at what point did Davies Station go from being a side-loading station to a centre platform station? Here's the original proposed design, direct from the City itself:
View attachment 395111
Yet in the video below released by TransEd, we see a centre loading platform with the tracks against the windows.
fb.watch

Onwards and Upwards! TransEd crews spent the past week high in the air testing trains on the elevated tracks north of Davies Station. Our drivers put... | By Edmonton Valley Line LRT - Facebook

Onwards and Upwards! TransEd crews spent the past week high in the air testing trains on the elevated tracks north of Davies Station. Our drivers put...
fb.watch fb.watch
Click to expand...
Interesting. I don't think this has been noticed before. I do recall that the City said that the P3 model meant detailed design would be done by the P3 consortium, so perhaps when they started pricing out the design, the contractor determined it was more economical to build a centre platform there.
 
CplKlinger said:
transforming.edmonton.ca

Valley Line Southeast 101: An insider's guide to the low-floor, urban-style LRT experience - Transforming Edmonton

The Valley Line Southeast will introduce a “low-floor, urban-style” LRT experience to Edmonton passengers who have until now been familiar with “high-floor, suburban” LRT trains. “From Denver and Toronto to Helsinki and Amsterdam, cities around the world have successfully integrated low-floor...
transforming.edmonton.ca transforming.edmonton.ca
Click to expand...
Some fairly bizarre statements in that piece:

"LRT built this way means less noise and fewer disruptions. There are no crossing arms, gates, bells or flashing lights. LRT drivers operate the trains in their own lane alongside other traffic at community-posted speeds and conditions. (The speeds will range from 40 km/h to 60 km/h throughout communities along the route, and up to 80 km/h along the Tawatinâ Bridge and elevated portions where the trains are separated from traffic.)

All of this makes for a quieter system—and for the need to be vigilant. Automobile drivers will need to pay close attention as right turns are not allowed on red lights at some intersections. Everyone, no matter how they move, must always pay attention and follow the signs and signals."
Click to expand...

The limitation on speeds/travel times, is a widely-acknowledged limitation of the urban LRT, not a benefit...(!) ...do I really need to point this out to the City, shouldn't they know this?

It seems the City is now suggesting that we need "equality" between trains and cars/SUV/trucks, so they all have to travel the same speed. This is surely guaranteed to make transit unattractive compared to private vehicles.

You might think that the speed limitation is a good trade off for the integrated nature of the train. That's probably a reasonable opinion to hold. But the City's new line seems to be that it is independently good that the train goes slow and will be "equal" to other vehicles. This is truly bizarre. When have we required "equality" between vehicles and trains? We aren't talking about human beings of different races, or sexual orientation, or religion, where it is accepted that equality is a good thing. We are talking about pieces of infrastructure.
 
I think the Bonnyville station that City of Las Vegas has would be perfect there. No need to demolish all of it to accommodate commuter bicycles with a small contracted out bike repair shop built in. Commuters can arrive by train here (its bus in Las Vegas) and pick up there pick to continue a journey to home or work - or drop the bike off and go to office.

RTC.jpg

www.lasvegascyclery.com

About RTC Bike Center

www.lasvegascyclery.com www.lasvegascyclery.com
 
occidentalcapital said:
Some fairly bizarre statements in that piece:



The limitation on speeds/travel times, is a widely-acknowledged limitation of the urban LRT, not a benefit...(!) ...do I really need to point this out to the City, shouldn't they know this?

It seems the City is now suggesting that we need "equality" between trains and cars/SUV/trucks, so they all have to travel the same speed. This is surely guaranteed to make transit unattractive compared to private vehicles.

You might think that the speed limitation is a good trade off for the integrated nature of the train. That's probably a reasonable opinion to hold. But the City's new line seems to be that it is independently good that the train goes slow and will be "equal" to other vehicles. This is truly bizarre. When have we required "equality" between vehicles and trains? We aren't talking about human beings of different races, or sexual orientation, or religion, where it is accepted that equality is a good thing. We are talking about pieces of infrastructure.
Click to expand...
While it always nice to get somewhere quicker, I don't think that is the only or key factor. There are additional costs for traveling by car. For instance, gas prices have increased a lot lately. Also, parking is often an issue if you are going somewhere where there is little or no free parking, such as to work downtown. If you don't have parking in your building (which usually costs quite a bit more than a monthly ETS pass) then you have to walk from somewhere, so you have to add that time and cost in too.
 
occidentalcapital said:
Interesting. I don't think this has been noticed before. I do recall that the City said that the P3 model meant detailed design would be done by the P3 consortium, so perhaps when they started pricing out the design, the contractor determined it was more economical to build a centre platform there.
Click to expand...
Here's another rendering, this time from TransEd, with the side platforms. A little different design (the first rendering from the City didn't have the black poles and chains separating the tracks. It would be interesting to learn when and why the design changed. Perhaps it was to avoid operating multiple sets of escalators and elevators to platform level? (Obviously with side platforms you need one set per side, whereas centre platform needs just one elevator and one up/down escalator combo to serve trains in both directions.) Of course this is the only station on the Southeast line where this would have had to be considered.
1650757329870.png
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top