Valley Line LRT | TransEd/Marigold | City of Edmonton

Tonight:

99BB5F63-DA48-4B72-BC3D-A75034C57DE5.jpeg
461699EF-421A-435F-A816-440961E78684.jpeg
D26F886B-AB46-4EEC-B29C-A899D44EA7D1.jpeg
 
The_Cat said:
From Lincoln Ho;
https://twitter.com/x/status/1457102366159761411
Click to expand...
Interesting! To be honest, it feels like there are too many stops downtown :( I think that's a big difference between Edmonton's transit network vs other cities I've been to or lived in. They'll have one for every 3-4 that we do. Though those were not winter cities. How do you all feel about our stop density?
 
DutchBoy said:
Interesting! To be honest, it feels like there are too many stops downtown :( I think that's a big difference between Edmonton's transit network vs other cities I've been to or lived in. They'll have one for every 3-4 that we do. Though those were not winter cities. How do you all feel about our stop density?
Click to expand...
I feel it makes sense as the line is low-floor and 'streetcar-esque', so more frequent stops then a high floor LRT but less than a full-on streetcar.
 
it's 1 stop every 3-ish blocks, right? on average? that's what the C-train has, it's what the 'EL' in Chicago has, (those are two systems i've had to use recently, hence my referring to them) and from what i see in maps, other systems like Ottawa have similar spacing downtown. I don't think this spacing is unusual, given downtown is the focus of the whole system.
It does slow down trough-traffic somewhat, but i think the spacing still makes sense, especially for the Valley line. I mean, of all the places where stops seem superfluous, or two stops could be condensed into one, i thin kthere are places outside the core that are more odd choices. I'm thinking of (jus as talking points, not really advocating for closure etc) the 116st and 120st stops on the VLW, Woodvale/Millburn and Grey Nuns on VLSE, Mckernan and South Campus on the Capital Line, and the two Blatchford stations. To simply ship people from as far afield as the train reaches, across the city, as quickly as possible, these stops oughtta go. but they exist, slowing down commutes for other reasons.

good discussion point though. tbh i think the station density DT is good. as the slowness becomes more of an issue, other lines (like down whyte ave) become more justified, and then we get more lines and a better fleshed-out network!
 
DutchBoy said:
Interesting! To be honest, it feels like there are too many stops downtown :( I think that's a big difference between Edmonton's transit network vs other cities I've been to or lived in. They'll have one for every 3-4 that we do. Though those were not winter cities. How do you all feel about our stop density?
Click to expand...

Huh, that happens to be exactly what I LOVE about the Valley Line!! Having stops be more frequent in downtown than outside of it makes the accessibility of the system awesome in an area that needs that accessibility. A low-floor LRT line has the precedent to have a stop every couple of blocks as well.
 
Stop density is not an issue, it's about the same for the existing downtown LRT tunnel as well.

The single interchange at Churchill is more of an issue. I suspect people will cut through Manulife to connect between Bay and 102 St, similar to how people cut through Pacific Centre in Vancouver to 'interchange' between City Centre and Granville.
 
The crowds at Rogers Place are going to be interesting. There are three possible stations (four if you count MacEwan) within walking distance. Depending on weather, fans can walk on 103 Street or through the pedway network.
 
I think one thing we have to remember that despite the LRT lines converging in the downtown, the LRT is about moving people around the city, not just getting everyone to the core. For example there may be individuals north of Grey Nuns that will travel south to that stop for an appointment. Or maybe a downtown resident needs to go to the bonnie doon stop to then go to La Cite Francophone. I think stop spacing encourages much more usage than just a simple train to downtown.
 
cliffapotamus said:
it's 1 stop every 3-ish blocks, right? on average? that's what the C-train has, it's what the 'EL' in Chicago has, (those are two systems i've had to use recently, hence my referring to them) and from what i see in maps, other systems like Ottawa have similar spacing downtown. I don't think this spacing is unusual, given downtown is the focus of the whole system.
It does slow down trough-traffic somewhat, but i think the spacing still makes sense, especially for the Valley line. I mean, of all the places where stops seem superfluous, or two stops could be condensed into one, i thin kthere are places outside the core that are more odd choices. I'm thinking of (jus as talking points, not really advocating for closure etc) the 116st and 120st stops on the VLW, Woodvale/Millburn and Grey Nuns on VLSE, Mckernan and South Campus on the Capital Line, and the two Blatchford stations. To simply ship people from as far afield as the train reaches, across the city, as quickly as possible, these stops oughtta go. but they exist, slowing down commutes for other reasons.

good discussion point though. tbh i think the station density DT is good. as the slowness becomes more of an issue, other lines (like down whyte ave) become more justified, and then we get more lines and a better fleshed-out network!
Click to expand...

Honestly, I think the amount of stops in the Oliver area is excessive too, but the other stops all serve good purposes, South Campus in particular (major connecting hub). I think that if there is concern about stop frequency and rapid service to far out areas, that needs to be addressed by implementing commuter rail on the CN and CP corridors rather than removing stops.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top