Kosy123
Senior Member
*Crosstown Eglinton has entered the chat*“The best transit is the transit that gets built.”
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
trevorhayden
Active Member
...Transit that is opened!
Gronk!
Senior Member
So no more LRT lines after the Valley and Capital Line extensions are done?
thommyjo
Senior Member
I legit think we might be on pause for a decade sadly.
yeggator
Active Member
We’re probably not gonna see any new projects announced until 2035 or so. By the time 2030 rolls around (by which point the Yellowhead will be a freeway, Terwillegar expanded, several bridges rehabilitated and the Valley Line West and Capital Line South extensions open), a lot of people in the city are going to be pretty construction-fatigued. Plus, with the current property tax increases, Edmonton is more likely to elect a fiscally conservative council at the end of 2025 (alongside a landslide Conservative majority federally - FWIW though, the Conservatives did promise to fund the Metro Line in their 2021 campaign). We’re probably gonna spend the next 10 years waiting for city finances to catch up with inflation or something. Although I wonder if criminal justice reform at the federal level might help us reign in police spending (wishful thinking) and improve economic activity and property values in Downtown?
HappyJazzz
Active Member
Agree with construction fatigue, but it might be a good thing.
Metro line needs a complete rethink IMO, and changing the route a bit might be the secret to unlocking a sudden and significant contribution from the feds that would allow construction to begin quite quickly...
Kosy123
Senior Member
We’ll probably get a 4-5 year break but that also depends on what the Feds are enthusiastic about. For all its faults, the CPC does fund transit projects (always done through a P3) and transit spending in Canada is something that isn’t a partisan issue and is politically popular. Nothing says easy stimulus spending like transit.
The city can have construction fatigue but if the Feds offer up funding then we’ve got no choice but to move forward on projects.
The city can have construction fatigue but if the Feds offer up funding then we’ve got no choice but to move forward on projects.
CplKlinger
Senior Member
This report highlights the two other options (113A Avenue is what got selected). Here are some screenshots from it, and the accompanying display boards. I pulled them from this amazing page that has a ton of interesting documents.
Since this is the Valley Line thread, here are the history pages for the Valley Line Southeast, and Valley Line West.
Last edited:
archited
Senior Member
I'll toss my hat into the 113A Street Corridor solution. It serves the most people per pretty reasonable projections and, after all, isn't that the main goal of transit. One aspect that didn't get much overview was the dispersion of other transit types and its impact on the rail route -- again it seems like other transit collectors are better served with the 113A Street route -- a better blended transit solution and the cost versus revenue ratio has certainly got to be better with a more community penetrative overall solution.
HappyJazzz
Active Member
Good info, thanks for that. Surprised the StA trail option scored so low on land use, maybe I'm misunderstanding the intent, but it seems that row has the most tod infill potential?
I have a radical rethink for metro line though...
Since the university av crossing prevents running 2 lines south from there, why not turn metro line into a U shaped route, with the current leg veering east to 97st and running elevated north, and then use the StA trail row and 121st corridor, going underground north of 107av to jasper, veering east to join the existing tunnel.
The line would end up being more skytrain than streetcar, but given what future projects are likely to cost, we should be getting the better frequency a skytrain system can provide.
The fed money angle for this is if the 97st leg was extended north all the way to the garrison, the feds could file their contribution under 'improving base transportation' and might be willing to fund a larger portion of the build if they can consider those funds part of Canada's 2/5% NATO spend.
Might be a stretch, but it's money that could be spent quickly, while more lengthy defence procurement gets ramped up.
CplKlinger
Senior Member
Here's part of their analysis, with some highlights bolded by me:
"The 113A Street corridor performed strongest based on future population densities and future land use opportunities; while the 127 Street corridor was strongest in existing population densities and existing activity centres. The 113A Street corridor is also the only corridor providing direct access to the Greisbach redevelopment. All corridors received equal benefit for the redevelopment potential associated with the Edmonton City Centre Airport (ECCA). Therefore, the ECCA was not a discriminator and development of LRT crossing the ECCA, connecting to the NAIT station was a strong benefit to all corridors. Outside of the ECCA, the St. Albert Trail corridor generally follows industrial and commercial corridors. These corridors have limited activity centres and low existing and future population densities.
A key insight drawn from the results was that corridors providing direct service to the northwest Edmonton neighbourhoods (113A Street/127 Street) performed significantly better than the St. Albert Trail corridor. This was true regardless of the directness and speed of the St. Albert Trail corridor. Access by populations surrounding the stations is critical to the success of LRT. A significant portion of the 113A Street and 127 Street corridors include mature neighbourhoods, and areas where future population growth is anticipated. These corridors draw from a larger area of population (current and future), and the existing and planned land uses best support LRT. Providing LRT service to established areas and to potential TOD or infill areas also better achieves the land use goals of the City’s policy documents."
trevorhayden
Active Member
The City plans and builds transit projects based on the 4 year capital budget cycles. This is what will determine the Metro line extension timeline:
2019 - 2022: build Valley Line SE and Metro Line extension part 1
2023 - 2026: build Valley Line West and Capital line South
2027 - 2030: complete VLW and Capital line South, and build BRT part 1
2031 - 2034: build Metro line extension part 2
2019 - 2022: build Valley Line SE and Metro Line extension part 1
2023 - 2026: build Valley Line West and Capital line South
2027 - 2030: complete VLW and Capital line South, and build BRT part 1
2031 - 2034: build Metro line extension part 2
HappyJazzz
Active Member
Here's a quick diagram of what I described above
This was partly inspired by looking into recent accident stats, and finding what the city is now calling the high injury network.
Was really surprised to see how bad the 97st corridor is for all transport modes. It seems clear to me that an LRT line could work exceptionally well there, especially if built elevated.
It would not only get the the busses off the road, but it would visually present drivers with an attractive alternative to their car based commute.
These are things the 113st row can't do.
For what metro extension work is going to cost, it has to provide better service than a pseudo-streetcar!
Last edited:
thommyjo
Senior Member
Ok, I think this is awesome. I really like this. Only downside might be the NAIT and St Albert connection not being as direct?
husky
Active Member
A bit of a hot take but I think St. Albert (at least initially) would be better served by a heavy rail connection. With the UCP coming up with a commuter rail plan I think that would be something to consider as a possibility.