Valley Line LRT | TransEd/Marigold | City of Edmonton

except for the freestanding parking structure -- needs to go underground... it is a large lot and the parking revenue could be substantial at event times. As Katz did with downtown ICE district parking, an underground lot that handles enough parking for the towers AND an additional 1000 cars could serve in multiple directions. Parking could be minimal for the towers (maybe averaging 0.5 cars per unit, allowing for adjacency to LRT); parking otherwise could support events and provide collector parking for LRT with convenient access to all quarters of the City. Parking alone could be a significant profit centre for a developer. The towers are close enough to downtown to be sustainable and would add to the node on the other side of the LRT tracks that seems to be blossoming. Also a hotel as part of a development here would work and be an excellent generator for retail and hospitality that could end up servicing the developing area as whole.
 
northlands said:
You know, there's a whole forum for Calgary transit by the way that might appreciate your unrelated anecdotes and pictures.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but it sounds like they are not the ones that need the help.

A lot of the negativity here would go away if the politicians and the other people running this gong show had the courage to come out with a realistic deadline and stick to it.

Instead they are spineless incompetent dummies.
 
Vanfan123 said:
I’m not surprised. And on May 27 2023 while on Edmonton LRT train 🚆 to CFL Edmonton Elks football 🏈 game vs Winnipeg Blue Bombers I overheard 2 Edmonton football fans talking about how Calgary built their LRT system/ park & ride lots way better than Edmonton & I do agree with them.

As on Monday May 22,I went down to the Calgary Stampeders Football 🏈 game vs Edmonton Elks. I took the Calgary C-Train & got off at Banff Trail Station & walked on the Calgary Transit LRT overpass bridge connecting Banff Trail Station to McMahon Stadium 🏟.

Yep Calgary Transit LRT system is designed better✅!View attachment 483501

View attachment 483502
Click to expand...
I’m entertained by the notion that they put a pedestrian overpass for the convenience of transit users rather than to get them out of the way of the 6-lane expressway that lies between the stadium and the station
 
archited said:
except for the freestanding parking structure -- needs to go underground... it is a large lot and the parking revenue could be substantial at event times. As Katz did with downtown ICE district parking, an underground lot that handles enough parking for the towers AND an additional 1000 cars could serve in multiple directions. Parking could be minimal for the towers (maybe averaging 0.5 cars per unit, allowing for adjacency to LRT); parking otherwise could support events and provide collector parking for LRT with convenient access to all quarters of the City. Parking alone could be a significant profit centre for a developer. The towers are close enough to downtown to be sustainable and would add to the node on the other side of the LRT tracks that seems to be blossoming. Also a hotel as part of a development here would work and be an excellent generator for retail and hospitality that could end up servicing the developing area as whole.
Click to expand...
As long as a large parking structure is included whether it be above or underground it probably won't ever happen. Same case down here, the "need" to replace the surface P&R capacity with a parkade makes it so expensive that it just never gets built :(
 
Can see Tawatinâ bridge all the way from Kaffa cafe (88 Av, second floor above redbike), trains zipping over every 5 mins each way. If I didn't know better I'd think the slope above the tunnel entrance was burnt or something, in my dream world that'd all be wildflowers
 
BrettB said:
I don't know there's any demand for it, but I would personally like to see that lot #422 developed somehow. It's been barren since I was a kid (too long ago)
Click to expand...
The City owns it and the lot is highly contaminated with pollutants, which has been the main reason why it has not been developed and sold yet.
 
yeggator said:
An old rail yard and presumably some industrial land uses.
Click to expand...
A railway yard no, industrial yes. It looks like a good portion of the site in 1965 was a lumber company of some sort. Not sure if it was related to Muttatt's or not, who as far as I know was on the other side of the tracks and further south.
 
EdwardEdm said:
A railway yard no, industrial yes. It looks like a good portion of the site in 1965 was a lumber company of some sort. Not sure if it was related to Muttatt's or not, who as far as I know was on the other side of the tracks and further south.
Click to expand...
Originally that lot was where Rat Creek used to run west from the modern day Kinnaird Ravine along the alignment of Norwood Boulevard. The creek and ravine was filled in during the 1920s and 30s, which included the area where Commonwealth Stadium and the parking lot are now, conceivably with dirty fill. Back then, it could’ve easily been trash that they just through into the ravine to fill it.
 
Avenuer said:
Originally that lot was where Rat Creek used to run west from the modern day Kinnaird Ravine along the alignment of Norwood Boulevard. The creek and ravine was filled in during the 1920s and 30s, which included the area where Commonwealth Stadium and the parking lot are now, conceivably with dirty fill. Back then, it could’ve easily been trash that they just through into the ravine to fill it.
Click to expand...
Indeed, it was used as a dump. The building I thought might have been a lumber yard, according to this text might have been a brick company.
citymuseumedmonton.ca

The Kinnaird Bridge: Connecting the Past to the Present

If you travel along 82nd Street approaching the west end of Kinnaird Park at 112 and 111 Avenues, you will …
citymuseumedmonton.ca citymuseumedmonton.ca

On topic, no trains out today yet. Maintenance crews blowing out flangeways Downtown. Perhaps a maintenance blitz day. I thought we might have been into the simulated service period, but perhaps not if they didn't send trains out today.
 
This past Thursday afternoon, Tawatinâ Bridge was active
(as was the beach)
DSCN2817.JPG
DSCN2801.JPG
DSCN2814~2.JPG
DSCN2810~2.JPG
 
TravellingChris said:
Yes but both trainsets on the Capital and Metro Line (U2 and SD-160) are Siemens products so you're only dealing with one manufacturer. And besides, Calgary was already doing it successfully before Edmonton did: they introduced the SD-160s on their LRT alongside the U2s before we did on ours. By contrast nobody to my knowledge is running both Bombardier and Hyundai Rotem low-floor trains on the same line.
Click to expand...
I’m assuming these Valley Line trains sadly won’t be interoperable, as in mixed double-consists? It’s not necessarily bad to have gone with another manufacturer, if they did specify interoperability, but at that point it would’ve probably have been better to sole-source to Alstom to provide more Flexities, considering these trains can’t operate on the Capital/Metro lines.

The main downside I can see about this is unnecessarily short (single) consists at times.

(Edited to correct typo.)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top