Valley Line LRT | TransEd/Marigold | City of Edmonton

I agree, Lewis Farms could also be used for testing, even though it's smaller capacity. I'm thinking there will be a lot of use of both facilities in the later stages of testing.
 
thommyjo said:
There’s not a chance the testing is anything beyond basic in a small area. Still a ton of segments without trackbed, let alone rail. 102ave will take until mid 2027 to be ready for trains on that section at all. Feels like people are misunderstanding what cbc is reporting here.

We are 3 full years away still. And that won’t be mostly 2 years of testing. No stops exist yet, most overhead lines won’t be installed for another year still.
Click to expand...
They seem to say it in different ways in a few different spots that thye think they can be done next year, seems unfathomable to my eye, but wow would that ever change things around downtown and to the west if they come even close to that goal.

Let er rip, it’s about time we started to get serious again about getting stuff done and productivity as a key goal.
 
Definitely getting ahead of myself here but if these ahead of schedule milestones are met, I think it would be foolish not to have MIP as the contractor for the next LRT Leg (metro north?). I know there’s procedures & bidding that has to happen but thier record with this line should be seriously considered. At the same time I hope its not 2029 before metro north breaks ground 🙃
 
Oilguy said:
They seem to say it in different ways in a few different spots that thye think they can be done next year, seems unfathomable to my eye, but wow would that ever change things around downtown and to the west if they come even close to that goal.

Let er rip, it’s about time we started to get serious again about getting stuff done and productivity as a key goal.
Click to expand...
I will buy 10 people on here drinks if we have a train moving passengers by Sept 2027.

They also said gantry work complete by end of 2024 was a goal in 2023 fall. They didn’t finish till this year. So idk.
 
Barnaby said:
I can't speak for MIP, but I have very good reasons to believe testing will not be possible on the VLW tracks until the entire extension is commissioned.

The Hyundai Rotem trains will be tested on the VLSE tracks.
Click to expand...
I was thinking about this yesterday. Marigold is responsible for only the infrastructure, not the vehicles or operations. It would make sense that before anyone can go testing LRV's on the VLW, Marigold is going to have to have finished all of their work and released the line to the City. This was how things were done in the past on the SLRT and NLRT extensions. Once construction was completed, from what I observed ETS would first run a selection of the MoW equipment along the line. This was then followed up by towing LRV's with clearance gauges, and then testing the trains under power, first at a slow speed and increasing in speed with each pass, and then finally full speed testing and training. For the SLRT extension to Century Park the catenary was finished around November 2009 with the MoW run done in early December, clearance testing a few weeks later, and powered testing and commissioning in early January 2010, with further testing and training following, with the opening coming on April 25, 2010. I didn't see as much of the testing on the NLRT extension (a lot was done overnight/ very early morning rather than midday), but it was certainly once construction was complete. That was unlike the VLSE where construction, vehicles, and operations all fell under TransEd who probably had more flexibility in regards to getting LRV's out onto the rails as a result.
 
I think Crossing arms would be definitely important to see on certain intersections that can tend to be a lot busier than others. Starting from the south I would probably put one at 34th Avenue, one at White mud, one at Roper Road, possibly one at Whyte Ave. The other intersections I think are quiet enough that it would not be necessary
 
thommyjo said:
The challenge is all the existing access points for 102ave. Hard to retroactively do those things.

One alternative would be to essentially modal filter/block the north side of 102ave so there’s way less points of conflict. Sort of like 100ave from 163-149st.

Keep a few that connect through. But most could close.

View attachment 701778
Click to expand...
funny for you to say this would be a hard challenge to make happen while also providing an example of a design change that would make it pretty easy ;) modal filters on all streets abutting to 102ave except for main roads (109st, 97st?) shouldn't be a radical idea in the downtown of a city of 1.25M. It would also do a lot of good for bike/active transport reception from the general public if we had segments that are fully built out so people can see/experience the benefits of proper infrastructure. Imagine if Edmonton finally got one(!!!!) road that was centered around usability for non-car traffic. Basically the opposite side of the painted bike gutters argument
 
cloney said:
funny for you to say this would be a hard challenge to make happen while also providing an example of a design change that would make it pretty easy ;) modal filters on all streets abutting to 102ave except for main roads (109st, 97st?) shouldn't be a radical idea in the downtown of a city of 1.25M. It would also do a lot of good for bike/active transport reception from the general public if we had segments that are fully built out so people can see/experience the benefits of proper infrastructure. Imagine if Edmonton finally got one(!!!!) road that was centered around usability for non-car traffic. Basically the opposite side of the painted bike gutters argument
Click to expand...
Haha. That’s what I mean though. A full 102ave closure causes challenges as there are numerous buildings and parking entrances onto 102 that couldn’t be fully shut off.

But a major modal filter approach would likely get you 80% of the traffic reduction. But keep accessibly the parking and other entrances needed.

I only think this works in 109-124st section though. In 97-109 I think it’ll just cause a lot more people turning onto 102 who were simply trying to cross it.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top