Valley Line LRT | TransEd/Marigold | City of Edmonton

I understood Cartmell's commentary differently. I don't think Cartmell wants to pull an Ed Leger and stop everything but instead prefers focusing funding and resources on fewer projects to reduce the adverse effect that extended completion dates have on businesses and people generally. In other words, finish what you've started before starting something else.
 
The_Cat said:
The challenges facing the Northwest sector of Edmonton include two rail yards (Calder/Walker) and Dunvegan) and two access roads (97 Street and 127 Street) to points south. There are no bike paths south because of the tracks.
Click to expand...
Isn’t the yellowhead project helping some of this?
 
If the Metro line bridge is an estimated $1 billion, it's not worth it at all.

That money would be better spent on a 124th st VL spur (I've posted about the alignment on the expansion thread), and a Whyte Ave Metro Line/Capital Line/Valley Line spur that would also grade seperate at University Ave.

Why you would pay for expansion to a very low density area when Strathcona is high density and begging for good transit, is a mystery to me.
 
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...
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:

1724446326654.png
 
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?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top