Valley Line LRT | TransEd/Marigold | City of Edmonton

dkazzed said:
It's not too late to change up the design of the west stations. The swing doors at NAIT-Blatchford shelters seem like a better design choice although it would protrude into the already narrow Valley Line platforms if it swung out that way.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but to be honest after visiting Blatchford, I prefer the central platform design, 1 set of shelters, 1 set of machines, 1 or 2 platform entrances, and a bit more space to move
 
dkazzed said:
It's not too late to change up the design of the west stations. The swing doors at NAIT-Blatchford shelters seem like a better design choice although it would protrude into the already narrow Valley Line platforms if it swung out that way.
Click to expand...
That's right, now we'll have 27 stations instead of 13 with the sliding doors beat to shit, burned, cracked and or removed.
 
I spoke to admin about the doors this summer. They're working on revising the design for VLW. The intent is no more automatic sliding doors on VLSE. I suggested ARC card access for shelters, since I believe the shelters are for customers only.
 
Seeing the Green Line debacle in Calgary has me grateful that the VLSE & VLW were designed as they are.

I haven't been a fan of the Green Line in the slightest. It's a line that was going to be bad at being a subway, while also being bad at being a tram. I'm glad Edmonton used LRVs for their intended purpose, even if the more suburban sections are slightly worse than a high floor system would be.

I'm also left wondering where we'd be if VLSE has some of the elevated sections that many wanted, like Bonnie Doon. I think it's possible that VLW wouldn't have been approved, which would lead to an unsuccessful VLSE.

It now looks like Calgary won't be getting a subway at all. Even if the Green Line was going to be a much worse version of Edmonton's subway, it was still going to be heavily used by Calgarians.

Here's to hoping that the UCP make good on the airport and regional rail connections in both cities. I think it's fair to say that with no Green Line, Edmonton will have the better system by 2030.
 
If the UCP wants to redirect their portion of the Green Line funds to regional rail in Calgary, I suppose there is an argument to be made for that.

Of course Edmonton could also benefit from regional rail so there is an argument for that here too.

We are fortunate that despite some issues with the VLSE at least the funding was solid and it is up and running now. The VLW seems to be coming along nicely now too.
 
Green line will be such a problem for the UCP. They will want to take it over so they can take the credit but this rural caucus doesn't understand good transit at all. What will really happen is they will lose their remaining south Calgary support who had been promised new rapid transit for years. Then they will lose north Calgary support because they will try to turn it into a private fancy fast (i.e. elevated) airport train. The north side will face years of construction and delays. It's better if they had just left the City of Calgary with the risk and understanding to proceed.
 
Barnaby said:
I spoke to admin about the doors this summer. They're working on revising the design for VLW. The intent is no more automatic sliding doors on VLSE. I suggested ARC card access for shelters, since I believe the shelters are for customers only.
Click to expand...
Ok......wheeewww1 That was a close one...thank Gawd for common sense coming to fruition. Frankly, I'd take Bus-shelter-grade-plastic over fancy slidy doors....heck even cardboard would be a better alternative...
 
Barnaby said:
I spoke to admin about the doors this summer. They're working on revising the design for VLW. The intent is no more automatic sliding doors on VLSE. I suggested ARC card access for shelters, since I believe the shelters are for customers only.
Click to expand...
Will they roll out a revised door for VLSE, or leave it as-is with no door?
 
The card only access would really not work well because people could follow others in and not everyone riding transit uses ARC. Either a door system less prone to damage or no doors would be better options.
 
Also I assume any kind of door system needs to have a manual release to avoid trapping someone inside in case of fire or electrical failure. Because of that the doors will always be prone to people just prying them open, even if an ARC card is required to open.

I say we do away with the doors entirely. On most winter days the radiant heater on it's own will be enough to keep people comfortable, but still uncomfortable enough to deter loitering.
 
Blizzard said:
I'm looking at the APC report right now and the numbers are about 50% higher than what you're saying.
Click to expand...
I can't say where I learnt this, but VL daily boarding are at ~15,000, so that checks out with what Blizzard said.

Also, Blizzard has previously given insider information that turned out to be true (I.e., they're the one who told us to expect the announcement re: VL commencing service), so they seem to me a reliable source for info :)
 
CplKlinger said:
Will they roll out a revised door for VLSE, or leave it as-is with no door?
Click to expand...
They were exploring options, including no doors. The original installation includes heaters with junction boxes for wave on heaters. The switches weren't installed last I checked.

I have a friend that works for Stanley Access Tech, and the sliding doors are extremely expensive. I don't want automatic sliding doors on these systems at all.

I agree with other posters that Blatchford was done correctly regarding the type of shelters, and the more traditional automatic doors. These doors actually have RFID scanners next to them iirc.
 
Here are Q2 stats for weekday daily lrt ridership for all lines in the network.

Screenshot_20240907_184734_Samsung Internet.jpg
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top