Valley Line LRT | TransEd/Marigold | City of Edmonton

EdwardEdm said:
Which lines are you referring to for "two stations on either side are too close?". Future Station only has Churchill Station nearby, with Stadium a long ways down the line. And while Future is probably too close to Churchill to really justifying building it out, the blocks sizes wouldn't be an issue. Look how close Bay is to Central (which, Bay was in fact recommended not to be built because of how close to Central it was). The way the blocks are already built, inbound trains from the Northeast often get stopped in Future waiting for Metro line trains to clear Churchill Junction so certainly no issue there.
On the topic of blocks... the green paint that person was gushing over in the video is an insulated joint that is part of the signal system. I have news for her. That installation dates from the 2010's when the NE Signal system was rebuilt. She had other inaccuracies throughout mind you.
Click to expand...
I looked back at our conversation, and I must have remembered it (partly) wrong, unless we talked more about it in person later on. This is what he said:

"I’ve heard of it [Future Station]! Just in news bits. No plans as of right now. But I heard they built a station entrance from the new RAM, but covered the stairs in concrete for now
👀
"

"I know it would probably complicate operations as that section is super busy. Between the switches and trains being speed limited on the metro line fork, idk if that corner has much capacity. Though it would bring the inbound capital block way closer to the station...?"

I said: "It's interesting to hear about the capacity issue. I wonder if it's mostly because of the metro's speed limit, or if capacity would be an issue even if it was at full operation. I recall reading somewhere, I think in the book Edmonton's Electric Fleet, that the corner there was built specifically to accommodate the easier construction of an extension to the Northeast. So you'd think that capacity would be taken into account when they decided on the station's location"

He responded: "Yeah that's true! With eventual moving blocks it would be easier too. There's also a piece with travel times and station proximity. Also limitations in the number of LRVs we have."

Thinking back on it, we must have talked about it more in person, because I distinctly remember him saying that another station (it must be Churchill, if that's the only nearby one) was close enough that this isn't seen as important to spend money on bringing online. There's other parts of the Capital Line, like the Coliseum area, the area near the tunnel portal between Churchill and Stadium, and the stretch between Southgate and Century Park, where Edmonton thinks the gaps are large enough to warrant adding stations. The first and third that I mentioned are in the pipeline, while the second was mentioned in the ETS service plan to 1.25m population (if I recall correctly).

On another note, here's two bits of progress: Help phones are being installed at Bonnie Doon, and we hit 15c on Thursday!!
20220407_171400.jpg
 
NathanielBorody said:
Does anyone know if this incompleted station is going to be incorporated into the Valley LRT?

Edmonton Churchill Station Video
Click to expand...

Why would you think that? It's not even where the Valley line is going.

CplKlinger said:
Thinking back on it, we must have talked about it more in person, because I distinctly remember him saying that another station (it must be Churchill, if that's the only nearby one) was close enough that this isn't seen as important to spend money on bringing online. There's other parts of the Capital Line, like the Coliseum area, the area near the tunnel portal between Churchill and Stadium, and the stretch between Southgate and Century Park, where Edmonton thinks the gaps are large enough to warrant adding stations. The first and third that I mentioned are in the pipeline, while the second was mentioned in the ETS service plan to 1.25m population (if I recall correctly).
Click to expand...

Quarters stop on Valley Line is about the same distance to EPS as Churchill.

The 40 Ave (Ainlay) station was supposed to be built, but lost out to Stadium rebuild because FIFA was more important than schoolkids. Go figure....
 
Foolworm said:
The 40 Ave (Ainlay) station was supposed to be built, but lost out to Stadium rebuild because FIFA was more important than schoolkids. Go figure....
Click to expand...
I'll guess you live in the area and felt personally attacked.

In a sense, FIFA is fairly important for the whole city, not just a single neighborhood, considering the huge economic upside that hosting 2026 World Cup will have (upside that might even help spur more rail transit expansions, in the end...).

Also, schoolkids, on that area, with the alignment and ROW being where they are,will hardly use the LRT to commute, so that's a very, very poor argument in favour of this station over the Stadium reno.
 
Foolworm said:
Why would you think that? It's not even where the Valley line is going.



Quarters stop on Valley Line is about the same distance to EPS as Churchill.

The 40 Ave (Ainlay) station was supposed to be built, but lost out to Stadium rebuild because FIFA was more important than schoolkids. Go figure....
Click to expand...
Stadium wasn't built for FIFA, it was built for the 1978 Commonwealth Games. In fact, that was the main impetus for building the entire original system, which consisted of 5 stations between Belvedere and Central.
 
CplKlinger said:
Stadium wasn't built for FIFA, it was built for the 1978 Commonwealth Games. In fact, that was the main impetus for building the entire original system, which consisted of 5 stations between Belvedere and Central.
Click to expand...
I think they mean the capacity upgrades to Stadium station that’s happening now.
 
ChazYEG said:
Also, schoolkids, on that area, with the alignment and ROW being where they are,will hardly use the LRT to commute, so that's a very, very poor argument in favour of this station over the Stadium reno.
Click to expand...
While I agree that the Reno>40th Ave station, that’s not the case. Tons of Ainlay and Louis students use the LRT everyday.
Foolworm said:
The 40 Ave (Ainlay) station was supposed to be built, but lost out to Stadium rebuild because FIFA was more important than schoolkids. Go figure....
Click to expand...
That being said, the walk from Southgate Station to Ainlay is 5 minutes tops. And there are 4 bus routes that’ll also take you right there if you don’t want to walk. Coming from an Ainlay “schoolkid”, the Reno of stadium, which was in such a sorry state, is far more important than a redundant 40th Ave station.
 
ChazYEG said:
I'll guess you live in the area and felt personally attacked.

In a sense, FIFA is fairly important for the whole city, not just a single neighborhood, considering the huge economic upside that hosting 2026 World Cup will have (upside that might even help spur more rail transit expansions, in the end...).

Also, schoolkids, on that area, with the alignment and ROW being where they are,will hardly use the LRT to commute, so that's a very, very poor argument in favour of this station over the Stadium reno.
Click to expand...

I suppose you were in favour of the City subsidising Rogers Place as well. I also suppose you own near Stadium or have Elks season tickets and was personally offended by my statement?

The argument that FIFA infrastructure facelifts is more important than long term access to the City's largest high school is disappointing but sadly to be expected.

Either way, this has nothing to do with Valley Line so I'll leave it at that.
 
Foolworm said:
I suppose you were in favour of the City subsidising Rogers Place as well
Click to expand...
Yes, I support this decision. The beneficial impacts for the whole city coming from the redevelopment of that area in Downtown will exceed the subsidies by a large margin, not just financially.

Foolworm said:
I also suppose you own near Stadium or have Elks season tickets and was personally offended by my statement?
Click to expand...
Not really. I don't even like Canadian/American football, if you ask me, and if you've read enough of this forum's threads you'll know that I own no property whatsoever in Edmonton.
It's simply a matter of perspective: while building the 40 avenue station is important, should not be completely scrapped and would benefit a good portion of the city, renovating the Stadium and the whole bid to host this 2026 World Cup will inject hundreds of millions, if not a couple of billion dollars in the city's economy, create jobs, enhance the city's visibility nationwide and worldwide and benefit the whole city.

You don't need to live or own near the Stadium to benefit from Edmonton hosting this event, as pretty much everyone in the city, one way or the other, will end up benefitting from it. Either because of job generation, improvements made to their neighborhood, the improvements that will be made on transit and transportation in general (expect a lot of repaving, sidewalk fixing, etc... in several areas of the city, not just around the Commonwealth).

And this line of thought goes all the way back to the VLW, in my opinion, as I am a strong supporter of the CoE/Province/Feds putting down some extra cash to speed it up so we can get it built out at least to the WEM before June 2026 (as well as some subsidy for the Prairie Sky Gondola, to make sure it comes to life and is ready when planned). These will no only be revenue and job generators but help showcase Edmonton abroad, and minimizing the impact of the FIFA's Men's World Cup on a city's image is borderline silly and shows either a lack of knowledge about this sport's popularity (which appears to be a trend in the always very closed-off North America, who seems to think that whatever is out there is not as popular or rich as what is popular in here) or lack of understanding about the positive economic impacts of low-cost/high-yield and ultra-high exposure events, which is what this one will be for Edmonton.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top