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?
 
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?
 
If Edmonton has a goal of higher density housing, transit will be needed to support its residents. Calder and neighborhoods north are potential candidates.
 
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...
 
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.
 
northlands said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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
 
yeggator said:
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
Click to expand...

You are essentially defeating the purpose of the LRT line, which an LRT terminal in or near St. Albert.
 
IMG_0115.jpeg


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.)
 
yeggator said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
ChazYEG said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think that's what should happen, although I see it a bit differently.
BRT to Castle Downs is a branch along 153 Ave from 97 St. It will be interesting to see what sort of BRT infrastructure they plan to use on this section.
I don't see a Castle Downs Station serving riders East of 97 St.
My guess would put an LRT trip to Downtown from Castle Downs Station at somewhere between 20-25 minutes, probably closer to 20. The 120x is 30ish minutes. Assuming BRT can shave some time off of that so it is closer to 25 minutes, there won't be any advantage for riders East of 97 St to go further West to catch the LRT over the BRT, so even with LRT, a 97 St BRT should hold its own.
Recently listening to an ETSAB meeting, ETS does have intentions of developing more crosstown routes. While service hours are a limiting factor, a bigger one is having enough buses. I guess even with a satellite garage, expanding the fleet might not happen until the Southeast Garage is built. 153 Ave was specifically mentioned as a crosstown route, so any BRT infrastructure could be used by a 153 Ave crosstown route. Quite frankly, I don't see much need to put true BRT infrastructure between 97 St and Castle Downs Road on 153 Ave. Greisbach Road and Beaumaris Road could get signal priority, but dedicated bus lanes might be overkill.
If LRT gets held up long enough, building a BRT right to Naki along the future LRT corridor might be useful as a LRT precursor.
 
TAS said:
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?
Click to expand...
Carney bucks. With the current economic uncertainty Carney may want to spend big on infrastructure to tide us over until the nightmare in the Whitehouse resolves itself.
 
EdwardEdm said:
I guess even with a satellite garage, expanding the fleet might not happen until the Southeast Garage is built.
Click to expand...
That flat-out can't happen. Perhaps the satellite garage has room for another 20 (this report is ambiguous about whether the city paid to retrofit the garage to handle 40 buses, or only the 20 they ordered), but beyond that they're out of space. Kathleen Andrews didn't add any capacity; it was a like-for-like replacement. Here's the council report on ETS' plan to build/renew the fleet storage and maintenance facilities, along with the detailed executive summary and the associated timelines.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top