thommyjo said:
The artificially low cost estimate, with the city being liable for overruns, is so dumb. Come on UCP. Be better partners.

Thankful to not be Calgary currently.

West line will be awesome ❤️
Click to expand...
The UCP want city council to cancel the Green Line, its their whole goal. They are so partisan that all they care about is destroying anything Nenshi had a role in building to make him look like a failure as mayor and therefore not a threat for premier. The fact it's needed infrastructure is immaterial, they don't like public transit much anyway.
 
SarcasticMarmot said:
The UCP want city council to cancel the Green Line, its their whole goal. They are so partisan that all they care about is destroying anything Nenshi had a role in building to make him look like a failure as mayor and therefore not a threat for premier. The fact it's needed infrastructure is immaterial, they don't like public transit much anyway.
Click to expand...

Their goal was to embarrass Nenshi, but this appears to have backfired now. The AECOM report makes it's pretty clear that the best (and most affordable) option is to tunnel, which is exactly what Nenshi has been saying for years. The report is redacted but based on what the city has said, and which portions the UCP chose to redact, the outcome is pretty obvious. The only remaining two options are now for CCC to vote against the UCP's alignment and the full green line is dead, or to vote for the UCP's alignment and take on all the liability related to cost overruns and legal liability. That would be grossly irresponsible for CCC to do, in my opinion, because the AECOM report's scope did not include things like impacts on property values, flooding, etc. And CCC will have to make a decision on this alignment before the end of March, which is the deadline for federal funding, which means those more detailed studies won't be done before CCC has to make this decision. It's a nightmare.
Either way, Nenshi can wash his hands of it and say the UCP messed this up, which they have.

But I know this is a thread about Edmonton's LRT system, so go Marigold! ;-)
 
BASE said:
While the valley line or almost any line ever isn't perfect it is looking like pretty darn good value right now isn't it. Transit project costs have truly exploded.
Click to expand...

So no more LRT lines after the Valley and Capital Line extensions are done?
 
Gronk! said:
So no more LRT lines after the Valley and Capital Line extensions are done?
Click to expand...
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?
 
yeggator said:
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?
Click to expand...

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...
 
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.
 
HappyJazzz said:
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...
Click to expand...
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.
Screenshot_20241221_080428_Drive.png
Screenshot_20241221_082746_Drive.png
Screenshot_20241221_082800_Drive.png
Screenshot_20241221_080435_Drive.png


Since this is the Valley Line thread, here are the history pages for the Valley Line Southeast, and Valley Line West.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
CplKlinger said:
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.
View attachment 621150View attachment 621151View attachment 621152View attachment 621149

Since this is the Valley Line thread, here are the history pages for the Valley Line Southeast, and Valley Line West.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top