Tbh I'm not worried that the Valley Line won't keep growing its ridership. As more development continues around it (and that is happening, take a walk around Avonmore for example), and as downtown continues to grow and recover (which is also happening, big difference of fall 2024 to fall 2023) then ridership will increase. Strong retail options in City Centre would probably boost this as well (Here's hoping this happens soon). Winners is already drawing some foot traffic from Millwoods.
 
Greenspace said:
2.25m riders is 6100 people per day. Latest figures is 9300 riders per day. The bare minimum business case for the Valley Line SE was 32,000 riders per day. Currently costs us $57m/year.
Click to expand...
When you say costs us 57mil a year, is that the cost of not hitting 32k riders (like the delta of actual vs expected)? Or the total cost not including the revenue?

Is the “business case” around anywhere to read more on from original approval days?

I’d be interested to understand how many net new users we got the last year, revenue increase, first time purchasers, etc.

Ideally this train attracts new users. Reshuffling bus users to a train isn’t super helpful cost wise.
 
One stat: at 2.25m rides. And 57mil expense. That’s $25/ride. Of which $2-3 is recouped in fares.

Pretty steep subsidy.
 
But if the business case shows and was sold on more robust ridership compared to the reality, we have a problem then. Will the operations have to be further sudsidized via the tax base?

Listen, this is not about being anti-lrt, it's about respect for the taxpayer.
 
The_Cat said:
I think the LRT means higher property values along the line.
Click to expand...
Theoretically. I live a few minutes walk from a station and the value of my property went down with the last assessment. Ok, sure a lot goes into the City determining property values, but was shocked to see it go down. It went down enough that it offset the tax increase.
 
whattheheck said:
But if the business case shows and was sold on more robust ridership compared to the reality, we have a problem then. Will the operations have to be further sudsidized via the tax base?

Listen, this is not about being anti-lrt, it's about respect for the taxpayer.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I'm pro-LRT and the decisions to do LRT were make at least 15-20 years ago. But we need to have an honest discussion of how much it's costing us, not skipping the facts or throwing up our arms and pretend it's not expensive. I find that very disingenuous.

I am hopeful the West line improves ridership over the whole line, as there are more current destinations, namely WEM.
 
Last edited:
I think ridership numbers will continue to increase year over year and then we’ll have a bigger jump once VLW opens.

There are currently midrise/highrise projects being built or being rezoned for near Mill Woods, Avonmore, Bonnie Doon, Holyrood, Strathearn, and the Quarters stops. Many (most?) of these projects are being built because of the LRT and will encourage further ridership.

Also there are all the multiplexes being built in nearby neighbourhoods now since the zoning bylaw changed.

On the whole, I’m optimistic about the future of the Valley Line.

And to be clear, ALL public transit is subsidized by the ‘taxpayer,’ but not nearly to the degree that roads and car infrastructure are. 😂
 
Low ridership in the Southeast is unfortunate but not entirely unpredictable, considering the population density and lack of activity nodes in the areas it serves.

The completion of the west should increase the ridership significantly, considering the higher overall population density in neighborhoods like Wikhwentowin and some of the Central West Side areas. In addition it will serve more and bigger activity nodes like WEM, Norquest, 124st, Misericordia, MacEwen, etc.

As @fromyeg mentions, an increase in the number of multi-family units in the central southeast thanks to a number of projects and most importantly the zoning bylaw will increase ridership in that section.

In 10 years, the VL will have more than enough ridership to justify its existence imo. I would argue it already does, even if its less than expected, simply having a good and easy way to get from these areas to downtown or transit is reason enough.
 
fromyeg said:
I think ridership numbers will continue to increase year over year and then we’ll have a bigger jump once VLW opens.

There are currently midrise/highrise projects being built or being rezoned for near Mill Woods, Avonmore, Bonnie Doon, Holyrood, Strathearn, and the Quarters stops. Many (most?) of these projects are being built because of the LRT and will encourage further ridership.

Also there are all the multiplexes being built in nearby neighbourhoods now since the zoning bylaw changed.

On the whole, I’m optimistic about the future of the Valley Line.

And to be clear, ALL public transit is subsidized by the ‘taxpayer,’ but not nearly to the degree that roads and car infrastructure are. 😂
Click to expand...
This line was completed as we were still recovering from the great disruption of COVID, which certainly wasn't predicted. I also wonder if the operating cost figures given here take into account the costs of alternative transit, such as more bus service which would be required if the line were not running.

I also feel it may take a few years for this line to reach its potential, with more recovery in transit use and growth from development along the line. While delayed too long IMO, it seems to be mostly running smoothly now.
 
IMG_7998.jpeg

Railing started on the elevated guideway
 
129,000 projected daily boardings by 2047 I read in one report. Then in a blog by knack I see 49,000 for SE and 51,000 for west by 2044.

It’ll be interesting to watch how it does. I suspect west will be a massive jump like everyone is saying.

Tbh, if the SE leg terminus had been Macewan, and not 102st, I think that would have helped a lot too.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top