thommyjo said:
101
103
104
111
112
117
122
127
130
131
140
503
508
522
580
700
706
724
725
917
940

All have poor ridership and frequency.

The ridership vs coverage debate is age old. Ideally you can do both. But as Edmonton continues to sprawl while failing to densify its core to levels anywhere near other large Canadian cities, our transit keeps straining. Our costs per rider are some of the highest in canada because of this. Our transit mode share is some of the lowest.

Especially concerning is how lower income, grid pattern, central neighbourhoods also have low transit use in our city. Those areas should see some of the highest usage. But people making 30k would still rather have a car because our transit is so poor, even in central areas with roads best configured for efficient buses. If we up service hours in these areas, would they boost ridership by 2-3x or more the addition of a route in a high income, low density, curvy road, far from destinations area? And from an equity perspective, a kid in jagar ridge whose parents make 300k/year having a bus to help him get to Century park for uni vs someone making 30k/year being forced into car ownership due to poor transit…. Wouldn’t the latter be more important to help?
Click to expand...
The city core is not densifying because unlike many other large Canadian cities our downtown has fairly limited and stagnant private sector employment opportunities. Over many decades our city has done little to encourage more private businesses to move here and locate downtown in the mistaken belief that things such as attracting or keeping head offices is not important. Employment opportunities are spread out throughout the city and many are in suburban areas which are less dense. Until our city does much more to promote economic growth downtown instead of just the industrial fringes this will remain a problem.
 
Edmonton has built its LRT network, but I think there are other issues that prevent economic growth downtown. Edmonton has small startups that move away after a few years.
 
Bad provincial governance has also forced Edmonton to create large Industrial Areas as a way to block urban sprawl, moving jobs even further out. Don't blame Edmonton. Blame Alberta.
 
trevorhayden said:
Bad provincial governance has also forced Edmonton to create large Industrial Areas as a way to block urban sprawl, moving jobs even further out. Don't blame Edmonton. Blame Alberta.
Click to expand...
Tell us how the province forced the city to approve all those massive single family homes along the west side of QE II towards the airport, or the Big Lake area. If the city was truly interested in density, they would not have approved anything like that. How much do the developers influence this city? And tell me exactly what Rachel did to prevent this from happening???
 
The problem has existed since Ralph Klein was premier. Alberta towns and cities can't create urban growth boundaries. They can't protect productive soils. When the province says build, cities are required by law to shut their eyes and approve approve approve.
 
Last edited:
trevorhayden said:
The problem has existed since Ralph Klein was premier. Alberta towns and cities can't create urban growth boundaries. They can't protect productive souls. When the province says build, cities are required by law to shut their eyes and approve approve approve.
Click to expand...
Interesting that Rachel didn't fix that...
 
David A said:
The city core is not densifying because unlike many other large Canadian cities our downtown has fairly limited and stagnant private sector employment opportunities. Over many decades our city has done little to encourage more private businesses to move here and locate downtown in the mistaken belief that things such as attracting or keeping head offices is not important. Employment opportunities are spread out throughout the city and many are in suburban areas which are less dense. Until our city does much more to promote economic growth downtown instead of just the industrial fringes this will remain a problem.
Click to expand...
Do you really think that City Council doesn't want to attract or keep head offices in the city? Really? I think what you actually are trying to suggest is that they have been ineffective or put insufficient resources to grow the business community, but it is hard to know when you don't say what you mean.

Frankly, I don't know which downtown you are looking at, but Edmonton's core is definitely better than it was 20 years. Not only is the residential population larger, but it also has experienced multi-billion dollar investment of both public and private money. I get that there is a lot of work still to be done, but things are absolutely better than 2 decades ago.
 
Last edited:
Edmonton isn't in the best position to compete for head offices for a number of reasons but it is well positioned to expand its tourism economy. What would a National Park be worth for example.? A new downtown hotel or two out of the deal wouldn't be unrealistic along with the park and hotel support staff that would likely live in the downtown core.

Metallica played Commonwealth to some 50,000 people on Saturday night and if they did the same tonight, that's 100,000 people putting money into the local economy. Perhaps $10M in revenue right there.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top