I wonder if intersections like 124 Street/Stony Plain Road or other major intersections will see track crossings being laid.
 
Tacom8 said:
The discourse around low/high floor, trams good /bad is so utterly confusing trying to follow along with transit-oriented content. On one hand it's spouted as the savior of European cities, quick and cheap to roll out. On the other is the blight of NA transport projects and we are fools to implement it. It's impossible to follow, but seeing anything built, getting used, getting good feedback is fantastic in my books. If by some miracle we become a more transit friendly city there are just so many more cards we can play to help beef up the network and presumably much more support to build out more expensive options. As much as people poop on the current design, just take a step back and look at the fact that this is Alberta and we actually funded and are building rail, with plans for more to come, that still blows my mind.
Click to expand...

I can try to explain my viewpoint as a transit-oriented enthusiast!

I think you're right in saying that any new forms of rapid transit investment, whether that's on rails or wheels, in cities which had little to none beforehand is great and should be appreciated. Most of the contention comes in when really looking at what was built, how good of a job it does serving its city/community, and if there was another mode that could've done it better. In general there've been niches around the world, including in older North American cities, which certain modes tend to serve best, for example:

Metros, subways, skytrains, etc. have lots of capacity, lots of throughput, and are amazing at serving dense areas of cities and moving people throughout and between dense nodes quickly. They are also very expensive and don't do well on accessibility.

Trams, Streetcars, LRT, etc. are (generally) way more accessible than metros, are convenient for local cross-neighborhood trips, and make streets important with their permanence. They're versatile and can be used from metro-style services to mixed-traffic bus-like services, but don't perform very well at either extreme.

BRT is more cost-effective to implement than LRT yet has a highly similar service style/level of accessibility. It's also more expensive to maintain over time and doesn't have as much of a "TOD effect" as an LRT or metro.

As for people's complaints about the Valley Line? It was designed in a way which kinda tried to serve the niche of a tram and a cross-city metro at the same time, falling somewhat short at being great at either (I don't think it does a bad job but still). Its configuration as a cross-town type of line, which will carry a ton of passengers in the future, is odd since won't be very fast or as reliable for those kinds of trips. Some may argue that, instead of investing in this infrastructure well into the suburbs, the city should've made a better LRT network/grid along multiple strong inner-city corridors, such as 124th street and Whyte Avenue. There's many arguments people like me can make about what they would've wanted instead, like in my case a regular high-floor and more direct route in and out of the city. That and an inner-city streetcar network to complement it.

With that said, I love the new line! Even with what I said above there's things I really like about it, such as the amazing accessibility and how easy it feels to use. Do i think this is what the city should've done,? No. But its rapid transit nonetheless which is great.
 
1702407491628.png


https://twitter.com/x/status/1734643966115565700
 
Thanks for that well balanced look at the good and bad. I don't really think we are in bad shape for building out this network, or BRT on rails as Foolworm put it. i think where i keep stumbling back to is any really great system has a combo of many modes working together to provide different levels of service. We need this baseline level to kick start density. We just don't have the hubs to justify a big expensive rapid network yet. Nor do i think we need to kick ourselves for not dumping more money into it now to account for it. I still think we can achieve pretty great coverage with the planned network expansions, we hit a ton of employment hubs and areas of interest. We will always have an opportunity to expand upon them to build out cross town links making those far flung stations more relevant and useful. Anyway, i guess i am more of an optimist for what we are building out even if it's not easy street to rapid transit i think it can always exist parallel to that network when it is needed.
 
Platinum107 said:
I can try to explain my viewpoint as a transit-oriented enthusiast!

I think you're right in saying that any new forms of rapid transit investment, whether that's on rails or wheels, in cities which had little to none beforehand is great and should be appreciated. Most of the contention comes in when really looking at what was built, how good of a job it does serving its city/community, and if there was another mode that could've done it better. In general there've been niches around the world, including in older North American cities, which certain modes tend to serve best, for example:

Metros, subways, skytrains, etc. have lots of capacity, lots of throughput, and are amazing at serving dense areas of cities and moving people throughout and between dense nodes quickly. They are also very expensive and don't do well on accessibility.

Trams, Streetcars, LRT, etc. are (generally) way more accessible than metros, are convenient for local cross-neighborhood trips, and make streets important with their permanence. They're versatile and can be used from metro-style services to mixed-traffic bus-like services, but don't perform very well at either extreme.

BRT is more cost-effective to implement than LRT yet has a highly similar service style/level of accessibility. It's also more expensive to maintain over time and doesn't have as much of a "TOD effect" as an LRT or metro.

As for people's complaints about the Valley Line? It was designed in a way which kinda tried to serve the niche of a tram and a cross-city metro at the same time, falling somewhat short at being great at either (I don't think it does a bad job but still). Its configuration as a cross-town type of line, which will carry a ton of passengers in the future, is odd since won't be very fast or as reliable for those kinds of trips. Some may argue that, instead of investing in this infrastructure well into the suburbs, the city should've made a better LRT network/grid along multiple strong inner-city corridors, such as 124th street and Whyte Avenue. There's many arguments people like me can make about what they would've wanted instead, like in my case a regular high-floor and more direct route in and out of the city. That and an inner-city streetcar network to complement it.

With that said, I love the new line! Even with what I said above there's things I really like about it, such as the amazing accessibility and how easy it feels to use. Do i think this is what the city should've done,? No. But its rapid transit nonetheless which is great.
Click to expand...

I've ridden the Valley Line a fair bit in the past few weeks and have been making observations about it. I agree with you wholeheartedly here. The Valley Line, considering it does work and exists where no rapid transit previously did, is a net benefit for the city and especially those along the line. The Bombardier LRVs are pretty slick, too. But I also agree that it is trying to do two different things and not really succeeding at either. For a crosstown route like this, you should be building for speed, efficiency, and capacity. None of this was part of the equation, aside from maybe capacity, for the Valley Line. This isn't necessarily a high floor vs low floor thing, as low floor trains can still have speed and efficiency, it all comes down to how it's designed. But the City was deadset on a sleek, "urban" tram, even in the middle of industrial areas south of Argyll and low-density loopy Mill Woods. The "urban" style works to about Avonmore and then it starts feeling silly. Some of my main gripes with the Valley Line:

- why is there that searing noise whenever the train has first stopped and you're able to deboard? It makes my ears bleed.

- The stopping at lights. Yeah, it's maybe 10 seconds, but still. I can see this worsening as the city grows and becomes even more congested. People on this forum before the line opened optimistically parroted the City's word that they would "just time it right"... this already isn't the case

- The slow speeds... outside of rush hour congestion, cars are faster on streets like 66th. Why? Oh right because of the weak ROW, large number of crossings, and plentiful stops.

- The copy-paste architecture of the stations where the only differentiation is what decals they decided to put on the glass. Feels cheap and mediocre. I get that this was the largest single expansion of light rail capacity in Edmonton's history and with the number of stations perhaps not every one could be super unique... but why is Davies the only noteworthy one? Mill Woods is a major transit hub and the terminus... why doesn't it look like it? Similarly, Bonnie Doon could be another statement station.

- Millbourne access. Sure 38th Ave/66 St is a relatively major intersection, but it is surrounded on all four corners by low density SFHs that face away from and have poor connectivity to these major roads by design. The culs-de-sac and windy roads also limit the densification potential. It would've made more sense to just tunnel under Argyll straight between Mill Creek (just before Argyll) and Wagner Rd, then have it continue down 86 St to where Millbourne Mall is. This is the community hub, not over on 66th and 38th. It's where there's amenities, existing medium density residential, and much more densification potential. From there it could've turned east on 38th and then south on 66th to continue the existing alignment. Obviously it's a bit late to change this.

- I do worry about how the Valley Line will age. Right now, it's so sleek and modern and feels progressive against the high-floor system. But it feels hamstrung by cheapening that I think will cause more problems as the decades roll on. Mill Woods has 100,000 people and this line is not as good at serving that community as the Capital Line is for the areas around Southgate and Century Park just from a capacity and efficiency standpoint. I would love to be wrong here, though.
 
Last edited:
dunno said:
For a crosstown route like this, you should be building for speed, efficiency, and capacity. None of this was part of the equation, aside from maybe capacity, for the Valley Line. This isn't necessarily a high floor vs low floor thing, as low floor trains can still have speed and efficiency, it all comes down to how it's designed. But the City was deadset on a sleek, "urban" tram, even in the middle of industrial areas south of Argyll and low-density loopy Mill Woods. The "urban" style works to about Avonmore and then it starts feeling silly.

- The stopping at lights. Yeah, it's maybe 10 seconds, but still. I can see this worsening as the city grows and becomes even more congested. People on this forum before the line opened optimistically parroted the City's word that they would "just time it right"... this already isn't the case

- The slow speeds... outside of rush hour congestion, cars are faster on streets like 66th. Why? Oh right because of the weak ROW, large number of crossings, and plentiful stops.
Click to expand...

And despite these points, some people in here so fervently defend not using crossing gates even south of Davies. *facepalm*
 
yeggator said:
And despite these points, some people in here so fervently defend not using crossing gates even south of Davies. *facepalm*
Click to expand...
I don't really care if they use crossing gates or not. It'll slow down vehicle traffic if they do, but that doesn't really bother me at all.

My personal interest in the Valley Line is pretty much from WEM station to Bonnie Doon stop (and many little stops in between). That's how I'll use it, how most people will use it. It's a high capacity tram that is most helpful to the core.
 
trevorhayden said:
I don't mind the slower speeds in the long term as most travelers will not be using it to travel from Mill Woods to Lewis Estates. They will make shorter trips.
Click to expand...
Probably one of the more common journeys will be Mill Woods to Downtown. Similar distance as Century Park to Downtown. Mill Woods to Downtown takes 30 mins by LRT, which is faster than the bus, but Century Park to Downtown takes about 20 minutes. Considering the population growth causing more congestion, the greater vulnerability for vehicle accidents, I can easily see this becoming longer on the Valley Line in a way I don't see for the Capital Line.
 
dunno said:
Probably one of the more common journeys will be Mill Woods to Downtown. Similar distance as Century Park to Downtown. Mill Woods to Downtown takes 30 mins by LRT, which is faster than the bus, but Century Park to Downtown takes about 20 minutes. Considering the population growth causing more congestion, the greater vulnerability for vehicle accidents, I can easily see this becoming longer on the Valley Line in a way I don't see for the Capital Line.
Click to expand...
Not to be that guy, but it's more like 23 vs 27 minutes. It's actually less than I thought, and the valley line leg might be slightly longer too.

Screenshot 2023-12-15 090452.png


Screenshot 2023-12-15 090420.png
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top