dkazzed said:
That's... awful...

Heritage Valley just started construction at a cost of $300m/km including the recent cost increase and an OMF. Metro Line is a similar length and it could double to $600m/km and still be $2.7 billion.

Is it the tunnel? If it's going to cost them several billion to tunnel, just tunnel the much busier blue and red lines and keep the green line at grade.
Click to expand...
While it does indeed suck to bore tunnels in Edmonton on account of our geology, it only calls for a short segment, and it would surprise me if this couldn't be done cut and cover. Drivers will complain, but it would make that underground segment much cheaper and quicker to build. Phase 1 of this extension seems to contain some big ticket items that are not just building track that are going to skew your price per km figure, like a new Operations and Maintenance facility, and new LRV's.
 
IanO said:
That little stretch on the north side there from 146-149 has SO much potential.
Click to expand...
Sadly, too much potential might be our downfall haha. There’s gotta be 50+ years of development potential along this line! Just the major intersections of 124/SPR, 142/SPR, 149/SPR, 156/SPR, 159/87, 170/87 could probably accommodate 20,000 residents. Not to mention all the east of 124th street development, SPR between intersections. And 156st.

Good thing we’re building thousands of apartment units next to farmers fields still though 🫠
 
Offworld said:
That market segment completely confounds me. Who are these being built to serve? What's the target market? I'm an apartment dweller and those fringe properties would never be on my list of potentials.
Click to expand...
I suppose there's people who don't want or aren't in a position to buy houses but work jobs out by the Henday or even out of town. Alternately, there's people who want/need apartments but can't find them within their price range where they actually want to be due to previous zoning limitations preventing densification of inner suburbia.
 
Offworld said:
That market segment completely confounds me. Who are these being built to serve? What's the target market? I'm an apartment dweller and those fringe properties would never be on my list of potentials.
Click to expand...
Edmonton's employment is fairly decentralized and there is a lot of employers in proximity to the Henday or in adjacent industrial areas like Nisku, Acheson, or Strathcona County. It can make quite a bit of sense for those people. Or people who may work from home for a few days during the week and living in these areas can be more affordable than being somewhere more central.
 
Look at apartment options that are 2bdrms under 2k.

You have 1) crappy old stuff in mature areas, 2) high rise type stuff with the challenges of more urban forms (price, parking, unit sizes, ease of driving to/from for visitors or self, poor proximity to schools), or 3) newer/nicer and more affordable apartments in new suburbs (or griesbach/Century park/stadium).

There’s little supply in “mature, but non urban” areas that’s not older/sketchier (see SPR, callingwood). That’s the missing gap here. Plus, for an extra 15min drive, the options are way better outside the henday.

I actually wonder if our density targets in new suburbs has backfired. If we had kept most new suburbs to be townhomes or lower, it’d lead to more apartments centrally I think. If we mandated density over 3 stories had to be within 1km of a transit station (major bus station or train stop), would that have helped us?
 
It's hard to compete against new and (relatively) affordable.

I wonder if it would be a game changer if they added projected transportation costs into mortgage affordability equations. Distance to work, availability of quality transit to work, likeliness of needing multiple vehicles based on Walkscore and Transitscore, etc.
 
GM puchased a lot of streetcar lines around 1951 and they were bulldozed. I think there would be some value restoring some of the old routes.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top