trevorhayden
Active Member
Since when was there a scope change from LRT to BRT?
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
itom987
Active Member
BRT doesn't change the fact that there are only 15 crossings on the train tracks from henday to henday versus 19 river crossings from henday to henday
Glenco
Senior Member
Absolutely no vehicles. Dumping a bunch of cars or buses through Blatchford would be a nightmare and defeat the concept
itom987
Active Member
I agree with you, but if people are complaining about building a bridge and claiming it will have little to no benefit versus cost, then why did we even bother building multiple pedestrian bridges across the river?
itom987
Active Member
This kind of penny pinching attitude gets us nowhere.
Last edited:
TAS
Senior Member
The federal government's $30 Billion over 10 years for public transportation begins in 2026 - what new projects will Edmonton be putting forward?
$20 Billion of that fund is for metro region agreements (province/cities kicking in money, too). To qualify and access this money, cities will have to demonstrate the following (these rules were put in to help address housing crisis).
Eliminate all mandatory minimum parking requirements within 800 metres of a high-frequency transit line.
Allow high-density housing within 800 metres of a high-frequency transit line.
Allow high-density housing within 800 metres of post-secondary institutions.
Complete a housing needs assessment for all communities with a population greater than 30,000.
Then, $5B of the $30B is for Targeted Funding - initiatives that support transit, school transportation and active transportation (walking or bike paths, rural and remote transit, investment in Indigenous communities and electrification of public transit and school transportatio). This targeted funding stream will address federal priorities such as net-zero emissions.
The final $5B is for Baseline funding and will be allocated based on population and ridership and will primarily focus on system expansion, lifecycle extension, performance upgrades and investments in fleets. These may include expanding bus fleets, retrofitting subway stations or constructing new tram lines.
Again, I wonder what is Edmonton's top priorities in accessing this funding.
Vancouver alone has a new 10 year transit plan with a cost of $21B. What is ours?
$20 Billion of that fund is for metro region agreements (province/cities kicking in money, too). To qualify and access this money, cities will have to demonstrate the following (these rules were put in to help address housing crisis).
Eliminate all mandatory minimum parking requirements within 800 metres of a high-frequency transit line.
Allow high-density housing within 800 metres of a high-frequency transit line.
Allow high-density housing within 800 metres of post-secondary institutions.
Complete a housing needs assessment for all communities with a population greater than 30,000.
Then, $5B of the $30B is for Targeted Funding - initiatives that support transit, school transportation and active transportation (walking or bike paths, rural and remote transit, investment in Indigenous communities and electrification of public transit and school transportatio). This targeted funding stream will address federal priorities such as net-zero emissions.
The final $5B is for Baseline funding and will be allocated based on population and ridership and will primarily focus on system expansion, lifecycle extension, performance upgrades and investments in fleets. These may include expanding bus fleets, retrofitting subway stations or constructing new tram lines.
Again, I wonder what is Edmonton's top priorities in accessing this funding.
Vancouver alone has a new 10 year transit plan with a cost of $21B. What is ours?
The_Cat
Senior Member
If Edmonton has a goal of higher density housing, transit will be needed to support its residents. Calder and neighborhoods north are potential candidates.
The_Cat
Senior Member
I think the only level crossing left is at 149 Street.
Tropical
Active Member
Yes to all of these things. That said, the reason I brought it up is that I don't see a clear business case for building BRT infrastructure over the next 10 year cycle, followed so closely by LRT to Castle Downs. I am confused that city administration would forward BRT with an LRT extension to Castle Downs already having priority for the next rail extension.
I simply cannot see why the city would invest in BRT to the area unless the LRT extension is shelved...
I simply cannot see why the city would invest in BRT to the area unless the LRT extension is shelved...
northlands
Senior Member
City badly wants better transit connections for the N/NW. For BRT, the City can construct it within their own financial capabilities and thus plan that with relative certainty into their 10 year cycle.
Large scale LRT expansion without at minimum a Fed/Provincial funding MOU is extremely unpredictable and difficult to strategically plan for.
Much smaller scale, but I think it's similar to the WEM transit station they rebuilt only to tear down for the VLW a handful of years later, because there wasn't complete certainty at the time of project initiation that VLW would go ahead (and it still almost didn't). Or on the flip side, Century Park was only planned to be an interim terminus for a few years yet it'll turn 20 years old before it stops being the last stop. Ideally it'd be nice to not build BRT to Castledowns just to rip it all out a few years later.
Large scale LRT expansion without at minimum a Fed/Provincial funding MOU is extremely unpredictable and difficult to strategically plan for.
Much smaller scale, but I think it's similar to the WEM transit station they rebuilt only to tear down for the VLW a handful of years later, because there wasn't complete certainty at the time of project initiation that VLW would go ahead (and it still almost didn't). Or on the flip side, Century Park was only planned to be an interim terminus for a few years yet it'll turn 20 years old before it stops being the last stop. Ideally it'd be nice to not build BRT to Castledowns just to rip it all out a few years later.
ChazYEG
Senior Member
Controversial opinion: built the BRT and have it operate alongside an LRT extension, as long as the route is different from what the LRT would be. Giving people more options of fast and high quality transit is not a bad thing, and might help overall ridership and propel a change in transit culture over time.
yeggator
Active Member
I guess if the LRT extension to Castle Downs is shelved for a while, it could give us the opportunity to re-evaluate the route. What if we sent it east along Yellowhead Trail and then up 97th Street? Then, it could cross a narrower freight rail ROW with a smaller bridge, and stop at Northgate and Eaux Claire (currently slated for BRT service - kill two birds with one stone). Plus, it brings the LRT closer to more neighborhoods east of 97th Street.
Alternate Route for Metro Line
https://maps.app.goo.gl/rBNGj2Sh8jigJ31e7?g_st=ic
Alternate Route for Metro Line
https://maps.app.goo.gl/rBNGj2Sh8jigJ31e7?g_st=ic
Gronk!
Senior Member
You are essentially defeating the purpose of the LRT line, which an LRT terminal in or near St. Albert.
fromyeg
Active Member
The plan’s always been for both.
The routes will serve different areas and having both will increase overall capacity.
I’d love to see the first 3 BRT routes running by 2030 and Metro Line to Castle Downs by 2035. (Hope that’s not too optimistic.)
itom987
Active Member
Your alternative option probably won't save the city much compared to just heading straight north over the rail yard. There is plenty of empty space on both sides of the rail yard to make construction progress smoothly. Keeping the line as straight as possible is ideal.