The_Cat
Senior Member
I think high-floor LRT seems to work well on railroad rights-of-way, or underground. On the other hand, low-floor seems to fit well into neighbourhoods like Strathearn or 124 Street. They're very accessible.
Valley Line LRT | TransEd/Marigold | City of Edmonton
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
The_Cat
Senior Member
I'm thinking, if Calgary could do it all over again, that 7 Avenue S would probably be low-floor LRT.
Glenco
Senior Member
Using low floor LRT on the Ottawa line, new Calgary green line and on Toronto’s new cross town systems is really puzzling. They have for the most part exclusive r/w and are underground in part where low floor has no benefit. Edmonton’s valley line on the other hand utilizes the benefits of low floor and is appropriate.
cliffapotamus
Active Member
^agreed. low-floor is less infrastructure-intensive, the stations are smaller and more accessible, and the trains less obtrusive. It definitely is a bit of a trend (for example, the Green Line is supposed to be 'Low-Floor Urban LRT' but the damn thing runs next to an expressway for most of the SE leg to be built first, with very little TOD potential etc, never mind a need to integrate into surrounding neighbourhoods at all, since they've all been turned away to avoid the road already) but there are real advantages. just the lower platforms alone, moving from ~30" for the U2 high floor system to the 13" of the Flexities, means we can greatly reduce the size of ramps and reduce overall structure length. Calgary struggled with this when they expanded their system to 4-car trains.
honestly this video feels a bit like missing the forest for the trees. he goes into a lot of detail about small things, like how many doors there are per metre of train length, but brushes over the fact that at-grade facilities are way cheaper than grade-separated, meaning the smaller points he makes about platform heights and access can actually become hugely important (see how Transed had to cram the Churchill station platforms onto 102ave; a tunnel wouldn't be an option there, even if we had the money. that had to be the way it is, and low floor made that arrangement much more feasible). He also seems to talk a lot about how 'we should just give trains their own ROW and avoid street running' ignoring the huge cost issues involved. Idk, this video felt very negative, like he was looking for some way to bash these new LRT lines. There's issues, sure, but this video makes it all seem like a forgone conclusion.
I think the Valley Line makes sense to be Low-Floor. the West Leg spends a lot of its time running through busy streets, and the better integration into surrounding areas is very important. low platforms are important when running at grade with lots of street crossings. cost is very important. speed and capacity on the Valley Line will be sufficient, it won't be 'maxxed out' compared to a high-floor line, sure, but it will be plenty for what we need it to do.
honestly this video feels a bit like missing the forest for the trees. he goes into a lot of detail about small things, like how many doors there are per metre of train length, but brushes over the fact that at-grade facilities are way cheaper than grade-separated, meaning the smaller points he makes about platform heights and access can actually become hugely important (see how Transed had to cram the Churchill station platforms onto 102ave; a tunnel wouldn't be an option there, even if we had the money. that had to be the way it is, and low floor made that arrangement much more feasible). He also seems to talk a lot about how 'we should just give trains their own ROW and avoid street running' ignoring the huge cost issues involved. Idk, this video felt very negative, like he was looking for some way to bash these new LRT lines. There's issues, sure, but this video makes it all seem like a forgone conclusion.
I think the Valley Line makes sense to be Low-Floor. the West Leg spends a lot of its time running through busy streets, and the better integration into surrounding areas is very important. low platforms are important when running at grade with lots of street crossings. cost is very important. speed and capacity on the Valley Line will be sufficient, it won't be 'maxxed out' compared to a high-floor line, sure, but it will be plenty for what we need it to do.
TAS
Senior Member
Thanks for sharing those insights.
thommyjo
Senior Member
Having stayed in oslo and Amsterdam where they have low floor, im a big fan.
Thats why I bought 2 blocks from the new west valley. The whole route until the misecordia will benefit from low floor. These are slow, 50km/hr streets with small homes and big trees. 156st is not 111st. Stony plain road is our first true Street getting the train down it. Jasper, whyte, 124 dont have it. But imagine the size, noise, look of mckernan belgravia down the middle of 124st with patios and storefronts. Itd be super rough.
There are for sure tradeoffs and sacrifices. But I think low floor was the right call.
I also think it shifts the feel from a long commuting train to a neighbourhood access train. Subways and our current high floor feel like they're really meant to move you downtown as fast as possible. Low floor systems help make neighbourhood stops feel more like destinations. This was really felt in places like Bergen when I traveled.
Thats why I bought 2 blocks from the new west valley. The whole route until the misecordia will benefit from low floor. These are slow, 50km/hr streets with small homes and big trees. 156st is not 111st. Stony plain road is our first true Street getting the train down it. Jasper, whyte, 124 dont have it. But imagine the size, noise, look of mckernan belgravia down the middle of 124st with patios and storefronts. Itd be super rough.
There are for sure tradeoffs and sacrifices. But I think low floor was the right call.
I also think it shifts the feel from a long commuting train to a neighbourhood access train. Subways and our current high floor feel like they're really meant to move you downtown as fast as possible. Low floor systems help make neighbourhood stops feel more like destinations. This was really felt in places like Bergen when I traveled.
ChazYEG
Senior Member
I've been following his channel on Youtube for about 2 years now and I would recommend that you also watched his video on the Edmonton LRT to answer your question. To summarize, the Valley Line, with the characteristics that it has, is more appropriate, according to him, because it integrates better with the residential areas ripe for ToD that it crosses in some points, among other things. For example: low floor integrates more with the urban fabric and can be a catalyst for revitalization of a degraded area or to propel businesses (I would argue that Rio's low floor LRT in the downtown/port area is the best global example in recent years).
I agree with him, but I would add that for me, the real game changers will be the Metro and Capital line extensions. Reaching St Albert (Metro) and making the connections to the LRT easier on the NE and South (Capital) will improve mobility to a different level.
The_Cat
Senior Member
Watching Global News tonight, the camera shot on the Tawatina Bridge showed more work on the pedestrian bridge.
Kaizen
Senior Member
Yesterday early evening
Looking North (you can see they've left quite a few boulders around that South pillar, it will be interesting to see how/if it creates a sand bar or embankment?)
North bank stabilization
South bank
Looking North (you can see they've left quite a few boulders around that South pillar, it will be interesting to see how/if it creates a sand bar or embankment?)
North bank stabilization
South bank
archited
Senior Member
yeggator
Active Member
I've never been concerned with the low-floor technology used on the Valley Line. I think that the capacity of the LRVs will suit our city's needs, especially once we further expand the Capital and Metro Lines and significantly bolster their frequencies in the core of the city. Moreover, as mentioned here, the technology meshes well with places like Downtown, Jasper Place and Strathearn. Furthermore, low-floor technology might be more palatable to people in Laurier Heights in case we ever want to build the Whyte Ave line through that area to connect to WEM.
My main concerns with the line are the poor choice to not elevate it at Bonnie Doon (where it crosses two busy streets, zig-zags a lot and could potentially interline with the Festival Line) and the shorter train lengths due to the stations being constrained by the city blocks in downtown. In fact, I created a map that shows where we would have to (and really should) close roads to make the stations and trains on the Valley Line longer (120 meters long ideally - same as the Capital Line).
Road Closures to Extend Valley Line Stations - Google My Maps
The Valley Line is being designed for 80-90 meter trains due to station length constraints resulting from Edmonton's road grid. Longer trains will inevitably be needed, so some minor roads will need to be closed to extend the stations. This map shows those road closures.
www.google.com
mcr
Active Member
City of Edmonton is now considering Valley Line West to be under construction, and have put out an updated website & route booklet. "Will take 5-6 years to complete"
www.edmonton.ca
Booklet: https://www.edmonton.ca/documents/VLW_Booklet.pdf
Images from: https://www.edmonton.ca/projects_pl...ource=virtualaddress&utm_campaign=vlwlrtandme
Valley Line West: LRT and Me | City of Edmonton
Valley Line West LRT construction started in 2021 and will take 5 to 6 years to complete. We’re committed to working with you throughout the project.
Images from: https://www.edmonton.ca/projects_pl...ource=virtualaddress&utm_campaign=vlwlrtandme
danimori
Active Member
I am super excited for this project! But MAN, the amount of times the shared use path switches the side of the road it is on (East of anthony henday to misecordia) is unfortunate, as well as the general lack of bike connectivity. Hopefully other interventions can be done to improve. Still super excited though 
cliffapotamus
Active Member
Thanks for sharing that they've updated the booklet! I looked through it, i didn't see any changes to the design, it just seemed like they added some new renders and changed a couple lines to reference Marigold Partners. has anyone noticed anything new/exciting/different?
also @yeggator thanks for sharing your map! I've been having similar thoughts about the platforms. I think enlarging them to 135m (to fit 3 train cars vs the 90m we currently have for 2) is a pretty likely future move. I think it would be a fairly easy (easy being a relative term, but in terms of train infrastructure) to extend a lot of the split-platform stations that span minor intersections (ie 124 street and Glenora) towards each other, closing off the minor cross-street, keeping the overall footprint of the station small. IDK. random thoughts. seeing how this would play out line-wide is super cool, thanks for sharing!
also @yeggator thanks for sharing your map! I've been having similar thoughts about the platforms. I think enlarging them to 135m (to fit 3 train cars vs the 90m we currently have for 2) is a pretty likely future move. I think it would be a fairly easy (easy being a relative term, but in terms of train infrastructure) to extend a lot of the split-platform stations that span minor intersections (ie 124 street and Glenora) towards each other, closing off the minor cross-street, keeping the overall footprint of the station small. IDK. random thoughts. seeing how this would play out line-wide is super cool, thanks for sharing!
Edmcowboy11
Senior Member
Finally pouring the sidewalk to on 28 ave today.
