Valley Line LRT | TransEd/Marigold | City of Edmonton

i mean, any lines downtown should be buried and i dislike the direction the city has gone with on the valley line. it's just gonna look a bit goofy with two LRT bridges sandwiching the high level.
 
dunno said:
i mean, any lines downtown should be buried and i dislike the direction the city has gone with on the valley line. it's just gonna look a bit goofy with two LRT bridges sandwiching the high level.
Click to expand...

Yeah, only goofy cities would build multiple bridges so close toget--
1602879851633.png


Ok, that's one example, but surel--
1602879862376.png


Ok but those cities are different, you'd never see that in North Amer--
1602879938403.png


Glibness aside, that's about the least persuasive argument for not building another bridge.
 

Attachments

  • 1602879669880.png
    1602879669880.png
    1.6 MB · Views: 141
  • 1602879703281.png
    1602879703281.png
    1.6 MB · Views: 135
westcoastjos said:
Why should they be buried?
Click to expand...
The bridge requirement was more due to the capital line bridge not being sufficient for servicing more lines, considering long term expansions and plans for capital north/south and metro line. The bridge would be needed from a capacity perspective. But lucky for us (This makes me so sad) the City will most likely not be building any bridge due to them moving away from central LRT, WHICH WAS THE PROJECT I THOUGHT WAS MOST IMPORTANT BUT OH WELL.
 
danimori said:
The bridge requirement was more due to the capital line bridge not being sufficient for servicing more lines, considering long term expansions and plans for capital north/south and metro line. The bridge would be needed from a capacity perspective. But lucky for us (This makes me so sad) the City will most likely not be building any bridge due to them moving away from central LRT, WHICH WAS THE PROJECT I THOUGHT WAS MOST IMPORTANT BUT OH WELL.
Click to expand...
What does this have to do with LRT being buried? :confused:
 
westcoastjos said:
Why should they be buried?
Click to expand...

that’s like asking why our original line should’ve been buried or why toronto, montreal, vancouver, london, paris, tokyo, etc etc bury their lines. calgary didn’t and now decades later is looking at doing just that and it’s going to be far more expensive than if they’d done it in the ‘80s like we did.
 
dunno said:
that’s like asking why our original line should’ve been buried or why toronto, montreal, vancouver, london, paris, tokyo, etc etc bury their lines. calgary didn’t and now decades later is looking at doing just that and it’s going to be far more expensive than if they’d done it in the ‘80s like we did.
Click to expand...

Is Calgary still looking into this? Haven't heard anything on it in a long time.

In any case, it's a tradeoff. We either bury the line and can only afford a stub, or we don't and can build out a more extensive system.

I imagine that once we are able to build up more density and collect more revenue (and stabilize our sprawl-based expenditures), which this line will help us to do, maybe then we can consider being able to afford grade separation. Chicken and egg problem.

We're also far from alone in cities building this kind of LRT system. Sydney is one of the largest examples I can think of right now.
 
I think Calgary would do well to get the buses off 7th Avenue downtown. Is there a way to run them along 9 Avenue or 6th Avenue, and have them cross at Centre Street or other key streets?
 
Valley line I think will be fine. I actually just wish they could have taken a couple more steps with the south extension. Based off of the current expansion I wish they could consider extension towards the Meadows Rec Center area and the one day south to the future new Mill woods sized subdivision south east of Ellerslie road.
 
dunno said:
that’s like asking why our original line should’ve been buried or why toronto, montreal, vancouver, london, paris, tokyo, etc etc bury their lines. calgary didn’t and now decades later is looking at doing just that and it’s going to be far more expensive than if they’d done it in the ‘80s like we did.
Click to expand...
No, it isn't like asking that. I was asking specifically why it should be buried here. There isn't always a clear benefit to burying a line and when the line is low-floor, the rationale to burying the line goes against the reason for building a low floor system to begin with. Access to and from the train is easier at grade and as Dave pointed out, allows for the money to be spent across the entire system immediately instead of over engineering things for the arguably mediocre gains that come with burying a line. I wasn't looking for a condescending answer. Let's be better than that, shall we?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top