Valley Line LRT | TransEd/Marigold | City of Edmonton

thommyjo said:
87ave WEM to Whyte might do more for our city than NW LRT in the next decade. BRT likely captures a good chunk of ridership for NW, not sure how much more of a bump LRT gives.

Vs 87ave really opens up a significant connection for our 3 major employment nodes of WEM, UofA, DT. It’ll ease traffic congestion massively for fox drive, 114st, 149st, 107ave, and groat road.

It’ll connect our main tourism hub (WEM), to the Main Street and local businesses of whyte. It’ll strengthen connections to 2 hospitals. TOD/infill in these nodes is going to grow a lot.

NW is badly needed, but I’d be fascinated by an analysis of ROIs. That line also acts more as a commuter route. Where a 87ave one covers a greater variety of destinations, which might drive ridership better vs a more purely suburb to DT line.

North side also doesn’t face the same number of bottlenecks the south/west do with the river. So as the population grows, the north end won’t get overly congested. Whereas fox drive will only get way worse.
Click to expand...

There definitely are potential LRT lines/connections which would have a much bigger impact/have better ridership right off the bat. I do believe that, after the Metro line NW, the city should seriously look at either WEM-Bonnie Doon or even a South side Crosstown line down the Whitemud from WEM-Meadows.

The way I see it, though, is that there is a lot of potential for development and growth on the North side. There are a lot of aging areas which would be prime for TOD, and as Edmonton's market heats up it may help spread out some housing demand from the major nodes of Blatchford and Downtown.
 
Taking out the center meridian on 82nd would arguably devastate one of best historical streets in western Canada. Replacing the trees with unsightly electricity standards and wires - not for me. I notice that the folks in Belgium are using flower pots to try mitigate the unsightly standards and wires but the ones used to service Edmonton's LRT are much worse than theirs.
 
Last edited:
Platinum107 said:
There definitely are potential LRT lines/connections which would have a much bigger impact/have better ridership right off the bat. I do believe that, after the Metro line NW, the city should seriously look at either WEM-Bonnie Doon or even a South side Crosstown line down the Whitemud from WEM-Meadows.

The way I see it, though, is that there is a lot of potential for development and growth on the North side. There are a lot of aging areas which would be prime for TOD, and as Edmonton's market heats up it may help spread out some housing demand from the major nodes of Blatchford and Downtown.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but I wonder if that’s a 2040-2050 focus when there’s still so much land to develop centrally and many more amenities/jobs to be aided by transit in these central areas vs NW?

And I fear Edmonton does a bad job at thinking with a “tipping point” or “critical mass” mindset and instead does a lot more “equity” filters (which of course is good to consider, but maybe can’t be primary always).

Classic example: instead of having 5-10min frequencies on buses and routes densely covering our central communities to push for 20-40% transit use in those neighborhoods, we do poor transit city wide, including super inefficient, deep suburb routes (think upper windemere), that get little ridership yet strain our resources. So we get 1-3% ridership in these poorly served areas, but only 10-15% in central ones. I’d argue we should have more areas without transit, so that the areas with it can have it good enough to actually convince ridership.

Another central LRT connector I think can do that. I also think the west to central area is a huge traffic problem too, so transit/a bridge here will serve all people. Whereas NW to DT really isn’t overly stressed for traffic congestion.
 
ntt1 said:
Recently being in Europe, I can't help but think that a tram-style integrated train for Whyte Ave would be the best, like the one in Gent, Belgium that runs right through the busiest parts of the city, including the city square:

View attachment 590465
Click to expand...
Maybe we could do street-car and cross-town LRT subway on Whyte, but if only one of these can be feasibly built, build a subway on Whyte. Otherwise it will be ridiculously slow.
 
Opening the Valley Line SE saved a lot of routes from downtown to Mill Woods, saving some duplication of services.. The focus could be shifted to local routes.
 
Last edited:
YEG Bus Rider said:
Which routes? Examples?
Click to expand...
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?
 
Last edited:
It looks like most transit routes are between LRT stations or transit centres. For example, route 725 (Lendrum/Malmo) originating and terminating at Southgate station. Would the route get more ridership if it was between Southgate and South Campus?

Also, a route like 117 runs between Eaux Claires and Clareview. Would spine routes like 153 Avenue be worthwhile?
 
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:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top