Capital Line LRT

[David A]

I like buddy there in the story, “we’ll move out, that’ll show the city.” Too funny, where do they find these guys?

I knew someone who lived in Strathearn for a long time and moved because of the LRT. Living next to a train line might not be what someone expected or wanted when they bought there many years ago.

But that's ok, if those people leave they may be replaced by people who actually want it and use it. It may also make fewer NIMBY's in the area so it can be redeveloped with more density.

 

[David A]

I think the Twin Brooks Station isn’t necessary.

You bring up interesting point worth further consideration and discussion.

 

[Avenuer]

You bring up interesting point worth further consideration and discussion.

I agree, there's minimal trip generators nearby and the design of the neighourhood is not conducive to infill development, TOD, etc. I say, axe the station and use the cost savings to grade separate Ellerslie Rd. and the Heritage Valley station as originally intended, as it won't be missed. If those costs would still not be covered in full by the Twin Brooks station removal, I also wouldn't be opposed to adding a new station on the existing line at Harry Ainlay/40 Avenue or in Little Italy/Chinatown at 95 St. Both stations could be minimal in scope, similar to the NAIT 'temporary' station. Just a few thoughts.

 

[northlands]

You bring up interesting point worth further consideration and discussion.

I thought this was interesting from that article:

“That station has been worked into the overall funding agreement, so removing that might mean that we lose funding from other orders of government — that’s really important to know,” Hamilton said.

I really dislike the vagueities of this quote but how does funding like that work? Prescribed X funding dollars per station?

Also: the staggering difference of 11% in support now verses 65% five years ago IMO shows how badly the perception of the LRT has gone down. When I lived in Cloverdale, some residents were overjoyed that the opening of the Valley Line was super delayed because they figured it’d do nothing but bring in riff raff and crime from downtown into their dainty lil neighbourhood.

 

[ntt1]

Mind you, when you have to drive to get anywhere from Twin Brooks…

Which is why I'd be pretty bummed out if it eventually gets cancelled. The whole neighborhood design caters to drivers and even a grocery run is at least a 5-10 minute drive away, or 20+ minute walk. To cycle in either direction you have to cross the Henday to the south, hop between the west and east sides of 111 St's MUP and cross multiple busy intersections and a ravine to go north, cross the ravine to go west, or cross Gateway/Cgy Trail to go east. To get to Century Park LRT station at peak hours, the busses are often jam packed, and on off-peak hours, the frequencies are not that high.

As I've said before, the tracks will cross both roads to get into the neighborhood whether or not the station goes forward, so adding a stop at this point (rather than reconsidering years later) seems to be a no-brainer to me. The NIMBYism is quite prominent in these parts, though, unfortunately, but I'm sure you could find also people, like myself, that are in favor of it.

 

[JuliallThat]

If they do decide not to build the Twin Brooks station, I hope at least the track alignment is constructed as if they were going to build the station anyways, so that it's not a whole ordeal to add it back in later.

 

[Edmcowboy11]

I would be ok with Twin Brooks station lost if that meant we keep the elevated station.
If anything I would still rather have a mini station just south of the main intersection next to Harry Ainley.

 

[thommyjo]

How many residents, homes, and projected trips would be lost by eliminating twin brooks? I don't think we can or should service the entire city. At this point, we need maximum ROI on what actually shifts trip modes. The latent TOD potential in our city will last decades, we don't need another station for it imo, and so if there isn't big demand in this area, why bother? Many parts of our city will be car dependent for decades still, just is what it is.

 

[Avenuer]

How many residents, homes, and projected trips would be lost by eliminating twin brooks? I don't think we can or should service the entire city. At this point, we need maximum ROI on what actually shifts trip modes. The latent TOD potential in our city will last decades, we don't need another station for it imo, and so if there isn't big demand in this area, why bother? Many parts of our city will be car dependent for decades still, just is what it is.

It wouldn't be many, that's for sure. The station would only serve Twin Brooks and no other neighbourhood. From the 2019 Municipal Census, a total of 6,013 people lived in the entire neighbourhood, which is basically the maximum captive potential ridership if a station were located there.

 

[trevorhayden]

I agree that we shouldn't serve all parts of the City. Can we just cancel the whole Ellerslie extension and use the money to add stations at Ainley school, Little Italy, Lendrum, 107 Avenue/105 Street, and Gorman? Probably costs much less and will add many more riders!

 

[David A]

I agree that we shouldn't serve all parts of the City. Can we just cancel the whole Ellerslie extension and use the money to add stations at Ainley school, Little Italy, Lendrum, 107 Avenue/105 Street, and Gorman? Probably costs much less and will add many more riders!

It seems like in building for the future, sometimes the present is being ignored.

 

[Edmcowboy11]

Well if I had to choose between an elevated station at Ellerslie or a station at Twin Brooks, I would keep Ellerslie and lose Twin Brooks.

Harry Ainley station and Little Italy station would indeed add ridership I believe.

 

[trevorhayden]

Getting rid of Twin Brooks station won't save even close to enough to elevate Ellerslie. It's a moot point.

 

[TravellingChris]

Eliminating the Twin Brooks station would be just another example of the City trying to save a few bucks in the short term and then living to regret it for decades afterwards. It's little different than the Transportation department insisting that at-grade crossings would not have a major detrimental effect to traffic flow in the NAIT area, so the City saved money and the result was a disaster.

Getting rid of the Twin Brooks station would save money in the short term, but would be a net negative in the long haul. Twin Brooks residents would complain about the drawbacks of having the train in their area while pointing out that there were zero offsetting benefits--i.e. they couldn't even board the train anywhere near their own neighbourhood. Even if the station isn't built, the line isn't being relocated and there will still be trains running through the area most hours of the day. The same people who are today insisting that they don't want the station will immediately start grousing that they are paying for a train line that they can't even ride to/from their local area.

Isn't the whole idea to make LRT accessible to communities, with the goal of replacing car trips? By reducing the number of stations--by making access points to the system less convenient--aren't we defeating the purpose?

 

[TravellingChris]

LRT extension in south Edmonton, rising in cost, opposed by some residents - Edmonton | Globalnews.ca

The plans for the Capital Line South LRT extension place a station beside the neighbourhood of Twin Brooks, at 111 Street and 9 Avenue.

globalnews.ca

I love the guy who suggests the City can be brought to heel by residents refusing to pay their property taxes. Just wait till the City starts levying late fees and then, if the arrears remain unpaid, eventually slaps a tax recovery lien on the property.