[whattheheck]

The city should be paying people to create content like this imo. Local, and especially young people dropping content like this on tiktok, IG, unsplash, YouTube. We should be incentivizing the heck out of it. Bolsters our image and civic pride and supports young creators who obviously like our city enough to go shoot it for fun.

Dm them a $100 downtown gift card for a video like this and say “thanks for loving our city”.

Um, that is called propaganda. I don't want my tax dollars to 'sell' the LRT or the Valley line. Just like I don't want my tax dollars to 'tell the feds' or force the APP on me.

You want people to ride the line. Ensure convenience, safety. efficiency. THAT'S the city's role, not propaganda.

 

[whattheheck]

5 minutes is essentially Millennium Line Skytrain frequency times, which is pretty good if you ask me

wrong. millennium line peak is every 3 minutes. and the system can achieve frequency every 90seconds. it's something the valley line will NEVER achieve. How, exactly, will future capacity be addressed? $2billion for a line with limited capacity. le sigh

 

[Friendmonton]

Um, that is called propaganda. I don't want my tax dollars to 'sell' the LRT or the Valley line. Just like I don't want my tax dollars to 'tell the feds' or force the APP on me.

Shame on anyone who supports such a concept. You want people to ride the line. Ensure convenience, safety. efficiency. THAT'S the city's role, not propaganda.

‘Propaganda’ feels a tad strong. All cities promote themselves and the projects they build. Some better than others. Edmonton has struggled with this for years. An influencer marketing strategy highlighting the new LRT could have a high ROI.

 

[ChazYEG]

it's something the valley line will NEVER achieve. H

I don't know where you got that info, the Valley Line could very well achieve 90 second frequency, provided we have the necessary amount of cars. Plenty of cities out there with similar low-floor systems that have such frequencies, including cities in places you'd never expect any kind of efficiency on ANYTHING (looking at you, Rio).

$2billion for a line with limited capacity

Any transit mode will have limited capacity. Some limits are higher than others, but there's not a single limitless transportation mode in existence. Now, as for how they can address capacity in the future, there are a few considerations:

1 - they can run trains of up to 3 cars, if I am not mistaken (could be 4). That in itself would increase capacity, as it's just a matter of acquiring more cars, with 5-min frequencies.

2 - they can increase frequencies. 3 minutes should be easily achievable. Again, a matter of acquiring more cars.

3 - It's hardly conceivable that any lines in Edmonton will reach the kind of capacity issue that would be concerning. Worst (or best) case scenario, the CMA population will likely peak at 3.5-4M in a few decades, and by them we'll very likely have more lines, and we definitely still have space to improve capacity on the existing ones.
If you think of the Valley Line, for example, with an increase to 3 minutes frequency and 3-car trains, the increase would be as follows:
Current capacity is 12 trains/hr and 2 cars/train, each way, for a total of 24 cars/hr/direction. With 3-car trains and 3-min frequencies, you'd have 20 trains/hr and a total of 60 cars/hr/direction, and increase of 150% in capacity.

4 - the bulk of our population growth (and by default, demand) will very likely happen around the higher capacity high-floor lines, either by design of by choice. That is on top of the fact that Edmonton is a very de-centralized city, so we'll hardly ever see the kind of ridership going towards a single point (usually DT) that would cause massive issues.

Even if we manage to increase the percentage of the population that uses transit, aided by the population growth, unless we achieve Europeans level of users, our capacity is not likely to be an issue.

 

[Kosy123]

‘Propaganda’ feels a tad strong. All cities promote themselves and the projects they build. Some better than others. Edmonton has struggled with this for years. An influencer marketing strategy highlighting the new LRT could have a high ROI.

Considering content creators essentially do it for free too, it probably will have a significant ROI. Enough people I know (and myself) have found places in the city through TikTok/Instagram Reels tbh

 

[whattheheck]

I don't know where you got that info, the Valley Line could very well achieve 90 second frequency, provided we have the necessary amount of cars. Plenty of cities out there with similar low-floor systems that have such frequencies, including cities in places you'd never expect any kind of efficiency on ANYTHING (looking at you, Rio).


Any transit mode will have limited capacity. Some limits are higher than others, but there's not a single limitless transportation mode in existence. Now, as for how they can address capacity in the future, there are a few considerations:

1 - they can run trains of up to 3 cars, if I am not mistaken (could be 4). That in itself would increase capacity, as it's just a matter of acquiring more trains, with 5-min frequencies.

no, it's a maximum of two LRVs adding a third or fourth lrv is physically impossible due to the length of the downtown blocks. and the max frequency will only ever be 5 min. it's a street-level system, it can't have faster headways due to that constraint.

 

[ChazYEG]

no, it's a maximum of two LRVs adding a third or fourth lrv is physically impossible due to the length of the downtown blocks. and the max frequency will only ever be 5 min. it's a street-level system, it can't have faster headways due to that constraint.

I stand corrected on the car length.

But it can definitely run 90 seconds headways. As stated, much busier, complex and trickier cities manage to do so. 3 minutes is easily achievable.

 

[whattheheck]

I stand corrected on the car length.

But it can definitely run 90 seconds headways. As stated, much busier, complex and trickier cities manage to do so. 3 minutes is easily achievable.

le sigh. no, it can't. one: it's not a driverless, computer controlled system. and two: a 90 second headway would result in total traffic chaos. there are already longer lines at intersections at five min headways. trains more frequent in that would result in gridlock! 90 second headways are only achievable if the system is grade separated (and computer controlled). sorry to burst your bubble.

 

[ChazYEG]

le sigh. no, it can't. one: it's not a driverless, computer controlled system. and two: a 90 second headway would result in total traffic chaos. there are already longer lines at intersections at five min headways. trains more frequent in that would result in gridlock! 90 second headways are only achievable if the system is grade separated (and computer controlled). sorry to burst your bubble.

Again, not true. I have LIVED AND EXPERIENCED low-floor, street running systems in MUCH BIGGER, CONGESTED AND COMPLEX cities, and guess what? THEY WORK!

 

[whattheheck]

and i KNOW PEOPLE WHO HAVE WORKED ON THIS PROJECT! That is where my information is from. Sorry, good person. Taxpayers have been sold a system that's not future-proofed. And those who brought it up during the exhaustive process to get here were quickly silenced.

 

[quit]

5 minute two LRVs are the max for this line. While it isn't in the project agreement as the tables in appendix 7-D were removed under FOIP, it is in attachment 5 from this old Council report on page 7. Page 9 of the project agreement onward does talk about service levels generally, though.

 

[yeggator]

no, it's a maximum of two LRVs adding a third or fourth lrv is physically impossible due to the length of the downtown blocks. and the max frequency will only ever be 5 min. it's a street-level system, it can't have faster headways due to that constraint.

Honestly, if push comes to shove (quite literally, when we talk about capacity), I think we’ll have to bite the bullet and close some of the lesser used cross-streets in downtown to extend the platforms so they can accommodate 3-car trains (that would make the Valley Line Trains 120 meters long, surpassing the 5-car Capital Line Line trains in capacity due to having fewer cabs).

 

[archited]

Longer trains vs greater frequency -- the accommodation will be made.

 

[Glenco]

Honestly, if push comes to shove (quite literally, when we talk about capacity), I think we’ll have to bite the bullet and close some of the lesser used cross-streets in downtown to extend the platforms so they can accommodate 3-car trains (that would make the Valley Line Trains 120 meters long, surpassing the 5-car Capital Line Line trains in capacity due to having fewer cabs).

Davies station would also have to be lengthened as well as Misericordia and WEM.NO easy task.

 

[ChazYEG]

5 minute two LRVs are the max for this line. While it isn't in the project agreement as the tables in appendix 7-D were removed under FOIP, it is in attachment 5 from this old Council report on page 7. Page 9 of the project agreement onward does talk about service levels generally, though.

This might be true from a legal perspective, but not from a technical perspective, and that's my point. It is doable, just need the political will (and the need) to do so.

Also, if we did have to close some intersections to make 3 (or even 4) car trains, it wouldn't be in too many places, so in the long term, it could very well be doable as well, as @yeggator mentioned.

The only intersections that would actually need to be closed are 105 st/102 ave (Alex Decoteau stop) and 99 st/102 ave (Churchill). Out of these, the only one that could have some really significant impact is the Alex Decoteau one, since 99 st/102 ave isn't really a traffic corridor for anything, and we'd actually be Bette off with 99st closed to cars between 102 and 103 ave, IMO.

Other than these two, all other stops could be changed to accommodate longer trains, even if it wouldn't be without its challenges.