VL review, after taking it several times:
the good:
- trains are sleek and cool looking on the outside.
- station integration into neighbourhoods is nice; easy on, easy off.
- it's interesting to see it 'stop' at major intersections, thereby allowing vehicle traffic to not get backed up. a transport system should be integrated and not put one form over the other.
the bad:
- at the same time, stopping at major intersections if quite annoying as a passenger; once the train picks up some kind of momentum, you slow down! grrr!!!
- overall, it's too slow. the 90 degree turns at Strathearn and Mill Woods are painful. And even on the 75/ 66 street straight-way, vehicle traffic is going faster than the train!
- the inside of the trains are too cramped. in the 2x2 seats, it's really just made for skinny supermodels. not well thought out.
- too many stops. (adding to the 'slowness') the Misericordia stop, for example, isn't needed as the Mill Woods stop would suffice. The Quarters stop is also not needed (at this time). I'm on the fence about both the Woodvale and Avonmore stops.
- the Churchill stop is woefully inadequate for the role it's expected to play as an interchange. When VL west opens, that will become painfully obvious. There are going to be way too many people and the congestion will add to the 'slowness'.
- the design plan should have called for a fence of some kind at the stops to separate the tracks, so people don't cross on the tracks.
- it's too easy, based on the design, for people to simply not pay. billions have been spent to build this thing, and it's so very important to ensure that only paying passengers get on board.
- this thing is not built for the future. The Capital line went from 3 to 4 to 5 cars during peak rush, as demand picked up, and even then when the trains pulled into south campus (before the pandemic), there would be no room. the VL can't be expanded beyond the two cars. i can't for the life of me understand why future-proofing wasn't a part of the plan.
Overall, if the VL is great for anyone who lives close to a station and works along the line or goes to post-secondary at NAIT or MacEwan or in the future, Norquest. (For U of A students, I'm not sure. Why, if you live south of the river, would you take the VL to Churchill, only to head south again on the Capital line?)
On the other hand, for the casual user, the VL doesn't make sense. For example, going to a concert or hockey game is still more attractive taking the private auto. Two non-regular ETS users would have to pay $14 in fares and take a train that's slower than the private auto. With the private auto, I'd have much easier mobility, and private parking rates are pretty competitive! (and unlike the old coliseum, with multiple ways to get in/ out of DT, there isn't much traffic congestion before/ after arena events.)
overall, a 6/10. it could have been so much better. low floor systems should not be both a neighbourhood connector and suburban people mover.