Valley Line LRT | TransEd/Marigold | City of Edmonton

[CplKlinger]

Good info, thanks for that. Surprised the StA trail option scored so low on land use, maybe I'm misunderstanding the intent, but it seems that row has the most tod infill potential?

Here's part of their analysis, with some highlights bolded by me:

"The 113A Street corridor performed strongest based on future population densities and future land use opportunities; while the 127 Street corridor was strongest in existing population densities and existing activity centres. The 113A Street corridor is also the only corridor providing direct access to the Greisbach redevelopment. All corridors received equal benefit for the redevelopment potential associated with the Edmonton City Centre Airport (ECCA). Therefore, the ECCA was not a discriminator and development of LRT crossing the ECCA, connecting to the NAIT station was a strong benefit to all corridors. Outside of the ECCA, the St. Albert Trail corridor generally follows industrial and commercial corridors. These corridors have limited activity centres and low existing and future population densities.

A key insight drawn from the results was that corridors providing direct service to the northwest Edmonton neighbourhoods (113A Street/127 Street) performed significantly better than the St. Albert Trail corridor. This was true regardless of the directness and speed of the St. Albert Trail corridor. Access by populations surrounding the stations is critical to the success of LRT. A significant portion of the 113A Street and 127 Street corridors include mature neighbourhoods, and areas where future population growth is anticipated. These corridors draw from a larger area of population (current and future), and the existing and planned land uses best support LRT. Providing LRT service to established areas and to potential TOD or infill areas also better achieves the land use goals of the City’s policy documents."

 

[trevorhayden]

The City plans and builds transit projects based on the 4 year capital budget cycles. This is what will determine the Metro line extension timeline:
2019 - 2022: build Valley Line SE and Metro Line extension part 1
2023 - 2026: build Valley Line West and Capital line South
2027 - 2030: complete VLW and Capital line South, and build BRT part 1
2031 - 2034: build Metro line extension part 2

 

[HappyJazzz]

Good info, thanks for that. Surprised the StA trail option scored so low on land use, maybe I'm misunderstanding the intent, but it seems that row has the most tod infill potential?

I have a radical rethink for metro line though...

Since the university av crossing prevents running 2 lines south from there, why not turn metro line into a U shaped route, with the current leg veering east to 97st and running elevated north, and then use the StA trail row and 121st corridor, going underground north of 107av to jasper, veering east to join the existing tunnel.

The line would end up being more skytrain than streetcar, but given what future projects are likely to cost, we should be getting the better frequency a skytrain system can provide.

The fed money angle for this is if the 97st leg was extended north all the way to the garrison, the feds could file their contribution under 'improving base transportation' and might be willing to fund a larger portion of the build if they can consider those funds part of Canada's 2/5% NATO spend.

Might be a stretch, but it's money that could be spent quickly, while more lengthy defence procurement gets ramped up.

Here's a quick diagram of what I described above

This was partly inspired by looking into recent accident stats, and finding what the city is now calling the high injury network.

Was really surprised to see how bad the 97st corridor is for all transport modes. It seems clear to me that an LRT line could work exceptionally well there, especially if built elevated.

It would not only get the the busses off the road, but it would visually present drivers with an attractive alternative to their car based commute.

These are things the 113st row can't do.

For what metro extension work is going to cost, it has to provide better service than a pseudo-streetcar!

 

[thommyjo]

Here's a quick diagram of what I described above

Ok, I think this is awesome. I really like this. Only downside might be the NAIT and St Albert connection not being as direct?

 

[husky]

A bit of a hot take but I think St. Albert (at least initially) would be better served by a heavy rail connection. With the UCP coming up with a commuter rail plan I think that would be something to consider as a possibility.

 

[Edmcowboy11]

A bit of a hot take but I think St. Albert (at least initially) would be better served by a heavy rail connection. With the UCP coming up with a commuter rail plan I think that would be something to consider as a possibility.

Naaa, St.Albert is way too close to have a different type of train. Commuter lines would best serve Ft.Sask, Spruce Grove, Stoney Plain, Devon. St.Albert and Sherwood Park should be within the LRT network.

Back to low floor valley line, I say extension to Meadows on the south side, branch at Whyte as proposed, branch at 124st to westmount/science centre, branch near Bonnie Doon to Capilano.