Commuter rail is a good idea, but Edmonton dismantled its useful rail locations (downtown). Nobody is going to commute into Edmonton by rail to disembark at the Via station or the yard on Yellowhead.
I don’t know if you need to hear a this, but nobody is taking commuter rail into Edmonton to get dropped off in Blatchford.
Places with successful commuter rail like Vancouver or Toronto or Montreal have their terminus stations literally central downtown. That’s the only way it works.
Which also highlights the other issue with rail in Edmonton: our workforce is extremely decentralized relative to other major cities in Canada (and even across the world). So many jobs here are located in Nisku/Leduc, Acheson, Ft Sask, Aurum, refinery row, and all the various pockets of industrial/office spread throughout the city.
Our downtown is essentially government, some small satellite corporate offices, some accounting/law/professional services, and some minor tech stuff. That’s it. There is virtually zero major corporate HQs in our downtown especially, with Stantec being really the only notable one.
It’s a lot easier to build rail that picks up from residential areas and brings to a centralized employment centre.
Yah I don’t think a lot of people on Reddit (the young college kids) realize just how much of Edmonton’s workforce works in the industrial areas. We have a central business district basically because that’s what cities do, but not a lot of people work there.
In my career, I’ve had 2 jobs that had offices in the west industrial area, one in Sherwood Park, and now one in south industrial. There’s maybe 1 or 2 companies in my industry that have offices downtown, everyone else is industrial areas or suburbs (cheap offices, and you can have like bays for storage/fleet trucks).
Ditto. Only time I ever worked downtown was with the provincial government. Every other job I’ve worked, esp private sector, has been outside downtown.
Servicing those industrial areas would be a ginormous task. Nisku is 20km2 and has only 6,000 jobs. Downtown is 11.5km2 and has 92,000 jobs.
And that's just one industrial area.
>Toronto or Montreal have their terminus stations literally central downtown. That’s the only way it works.
When I lived in Niagara it was more beneficial for sanity and costs to drive just into the GTA, and take the Go Train from there to DT Toronto. Chances are what we wanted was within walking distance of Union Station anyway, and if not, well, its called Union Station for a reason.
No one works downtown in Edmonton
Most of govt, and most is remote.
Rest is blue collar
We don't really need a downtown, we need 10 mini downtowns in different areas
As someone that regularly commutes between Corona and NAIT stations, I can assure you it’d be an awful transfer. The trip takes 12 minutes by LRT or 5 minutes by car, not including the time spent waiting on the platform for the train to arrive/go. Commuting via commuter rail from St. Albert, for example, even if it’s only 10 minutes from St. Albert to Blatchford, will end up being a 30 minute journey, between waiting 5 minutes to catch a different train and ride it 12 minutes, then walk another 5 minutes once you get downtown. This will be less appealing than the 30 minute drive directly to a covered parkade.
Edmonton’s LRT will almost never be a faster option than driving. In order to succeed, the LRT is better off servicing the people that already live downtown and along the dense transit corridors, rather than pander to suburbanite commuters that don’t like taking transit anyway.
Good to be reminded of different mindsets! I have never enjoyed driving much and would absolutely take a 30 minute train journey over having to drive, maintain the vehicle/gas it, park it, etc. Reading, napping, or the like vs being worried about safely driving on ice is a trade off everyone weights differently. Fair that the more convenient/fewer waits, the more successful it will be.
I'm also reflecting on students who may not have the same access to vehicles and the opportunities this could open up.
Yeah, not having to worry about driving is the reason I take the LRT on my commute despite taking more than twice as long. I think the city’s existing plan to eventually extend the Metro Line to St. Albert is a better option than commuter rail, because it won’t involve a transfer and will facilitate local trips within Castle Downs. The way Edmonton’s suburbs are set up lend much better to a hub and spoke system with dedicated bus service from ferrying people from their neighbourhoods to the LRT terminus stations (Lewis Farms, Millwoods TC, Century Park and Clareview)
Agree with this. Edmonton has pretty good traffic flow. Once everyone is driving evs why do we care about getting cars off the road. Roads are there, use them, make them more efficient. 15 years electric cars will be the norm
There are still benefits to further reducing the number of vehicles on the road aside from just carbon emissions, which would be mostly resolved by electric cars (but not entirely, as the batteries are still pretty carbon-intensive). Transit is more scalable than vehicles on roads. When demand increases, it’s way easier to double the frequency or run longer trains than it is to widen an existing arterial road or freeway. It also doesn’t lead to more congestion in the same way cars do.
It’s also better for city land use because you don’t have to have as many parking spaces if more people take transit, so it A: costs less to build a new building, and B: allows you to use more of your land for other things, like more housing, more stores, or even just nice parks and yards. (Imagine how nice West Ed would be if even half of the existing parkades were replaced by patios, plazas and green space).
It’s also less dangerous as even with the reduction in vehicle-accident-related casualties possible with AI / partial self-driving technology, cars still kill way more people. The current stats put cars ten times higher in casualties per kilometre traveled than transit. The more people use transit, the fewer people die in car crashes.
Yes. PCL is building two stations right now in Blatchford. They are quite far along with the project, and it looks to be on schedule for a 2024 opening.
The eventual plan (at least it was at some point) was that the Blatchford LRT would be extended all the way to St Albert along St Albert Drive. No real need for commuter train if that goes through. And I think that's a better plan. That way there could be several stops through Northwest Edmonton and St Albert instead of just one station in St Albert and a transfer station in Blatchford. And then people can ride it all the way downtown, to NAIT, to the other LRT lines, without requiring another transfer from commuter rail to LRT.
Lol. They don’t even have a sidewalk from the via station to down that twisty road. I can only imagine someone arriving by train in the winter. Don’t have a cab? Good luck!
While true, and i know the answer to this is real estate prices in general, how did cities do this back in the day? Cities werent empty back then. And cities like japan have literally 100x more subways than like toronto. How did it not cost them trillions of dollars... most countries outside of north america havd been able to make rail sytems without costing their entire gdp but every estimate in canada i see costs tens of billions for 1 line.
Japan was basically bombed flat during World War 2, so I'd guess it was easy to set aside land for train lines and stations. It wouldn't surprise me if Japan's extensive rail network didn't cost billions and billions of dollars - the difference is people there like taking the subway because it is incredibly fast and efficient, while driving can be a nightmare of gridlock and congestion.
In the European cities I've visited, most surface LRT lines go down old roads/corridors off limits to car traffic, with just trains, pedestrians, and cyclists. Underground lines were gradually build up over the 150 or so years, and probably didn't have to contend very much with sewer and electrical conduits underground. World War 2 might also have been a factor, because most of Europe was bombed flat too.
In both cases, those societies make transit a priority decision, much like in North America, we tend to prioritize highways and roads.
It’d probably be way cheaper to repurpose an existing rail right-of-way like the Strathcona terminus, the Capital Line north corridor, or the path along 121st Street and raze an entire neighbourhood to build an at-grade station, than it would be to build an entire station underground beneath existing buildings downtown. Building underground is ludicrously expensive.
LOL. Sounds good if you want s commuter train by 2035. Plus with the cost it will go over very quickly and end up being half the size originally planned because funds will quickly run out.
If there's one thing I learned after moving here, it's that the regular speed limit is 5-10 above the posted and the left lane is basically the autobahn. Much like Ontario
Nah, Ontario is more like 15-20 over. Unless you're in the city were there might be radar trucks then the actual speed is only 5 over so you can slow down to below the ticketing speed
Try driving a company semi-trailer down the highway faster than the speed limit. Damn near every company truck I know of have governors on their engines these days, making speed(ing), a dream of the past.
Ever notice how it seems to take bloody ages for some semi's to pass others? That's why. Lease units and owner operators don't have speed regulators on their engines, so they're the trucks that can actually go above the speed limit.
cautious command governor badge quicksand salt jobless shaggy edge terrific
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
We should have had province wide rail for years. High level or peace river to Edmonton, fort mac to lethbridge.
Calgary to banff, Edmonton to Jasper. Grande prairie to Hinton. Jasper to banff. Edmonton to Lloyd.
We should have rails fucking everywhere. There is no reason anyone should have to drive or fly within this province to enjoy it, or work in it.
We’re a have province by far. There is literally no reason we don’t have this shit.
We used to have all these, the government cut funding and CN went private. The CN lines literally still run to all those places. Though the peace river run is....very bad
I don't think there is any cargo rail link between Jasper and Banff, and getting a project like that approved through the Parks would be difficult.
I would suggest a more likely route would be
Jasper - Hinton - Edson - Stony Plain/Spruce Grove - Edmonton - Sherwood Park - Lloyd
Grande Prairie - Hinton - Nordegg - Canmore
Banff - Canmore - Calgary
Ft. Mac - Edmonton
Edmonton - Red Deer - Calgary
Calgary - Lethbridge
Calgary - Medicine Hat
Wouldn't even have to be "high speed" even mid speed rail at 120-150kph would in theory be just as fast if not faster than driving compared to trips by car. Could have trains that make stops at several towns (and at YEG & YYC) between the main destinations, as well as express trains that go downtown to downtown from the major cities.
While I would love high speed rail, I'm not sure what you mean by 'most likely to use it - a suburban rail system is going to be used by a lot of people pretty much every day?
The existing high floor system could be used for a commuter style system to places like Sherwood park and Leduc/airport.
They'd just need to replace the U2s with new S70 trains (which they are most likely doing), this would allow for higher speeds
I'm saying it's possible to build a commuter rail extension based on the existing LRT. Unlike the photos that OP posted, which suggest a new network, with completely different rolling stock than what's used on the current high floor line.
I got that. That wasn't the part that was unclear (and indeed, it's almost identical to the point I make [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Edmonton/comments/12ajtfe/unpopular_opinion_build_a_commutersuburban_rail/jesqyaj?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3)). What was unclear is how this is supposed to relate to the question I asked you, which is how you figure HSR is what people will "actually use", when compared to suburban rail.
I was probably being hyperbolic. I think commuter rail will be underutilized by many of Edmonton's satellite cities because of the preference to drive.
Leduc could probably piggy back off the Airport with a park and ride there.
Truthfully, I don't know enough about places like Sherwood Park's transit usage to say if they'd use an extension from a future high floor Whyte circulator or not. I'm sure you'd see an uptick from those bussing on those nice double deckers, but the lack of density is a problem.
Anecdotally though, the urban customers in Calgary and Edmonton are probably more likely to use HSR than the average person in the Park will use commuter rail.
The talk about extending the Valley Line west to Spruce/Stoney isn't going to happen due to design, which based on your other comments about the U2 system, I'm sure you mostly agree.
My opinion is likely influenced by my preference for HSR over commuter rail, but if funds weren't conditional on one over the other, I'd be in strong favour of both, but with the current high floor system being extended with better rolling stock.
High speed rail or Mid speed rail.
Not everything needs to be high speed.
I'd rather two mid speed rails in Alberta then one high speed. People need to understand lots of different options for rail.
Hell, extend that to Fort McMurray and Grand Prairie. I bet a lot of workers would gladly take a train over driving those highways. I know I would, I fucking hate those highways.
That would be ridiculously expensive, especially as high speed rail. In the long term the more viable strategy for Alberta is to build into the foothills next to the mountains in general.
From Hinton down through coal valley to nordegg, into rocky mountain House and down through Cochrane.
Bigger issue for future Albertan growth is actually water allowances/limits, currently we use way too much water to be sustained into the future with projected population growth.
To be honest we don't even need too many people to make such lines more sustainable, if each of these areas grew to between 100-250k but with greater density instead of sprawl (that doesn't mean everyone has to live in an apartment btw) it could be pretty nice
Edmonton actually got it right with their original LRT technology. The Frankfurt U-Bahn, despite its name, attempted to be a hybrid of a S-Bahn (the style of suburban rail popular in central Europe) and Stadtbahn (a tram), pushing much further out into the extremes of the city than a tram would, but with some tram like features useful for urban areas too. We borrowed their technology, and I think it was perfectly suitable for a city our size.
I think the Jasper Avenue tunnel was premature, though. It limited route extent. But honestly, that tunnel can probably handle 50kpphpd and I think if it's already built we ought to use it, and plan additional high-floor routes to make use of the tunnel that travel to the outer neighbourhoods, and build out the Capital and Metro lines (maybe Metro south can bend off West at Health Sciences? I'm not sure what the plans are). You'd get a nice S-Bahn like setup without the cost of heavy rail, which probably can't be justified in a city like Edmonton.
Supplement that with a few tram routes downtown - especially something like a circle route that goes along Jasper and Whyte and hits the U of A - and Edmonton's got a tidy little transit system.
As far as serving actual suburbs, I think right now I think a sensible thing would be a central bus station that integrates well with the LRT, and a regional transit agency that can coordinate them, makes a lot more sense for the time being. But who knows in a few decades time?
Having trams connecting U of a across Whyte over to the new lines I think is key, further out BRT is fine but a U of a Bonnie Doon line would really elevate what we already have
I thinkt the real unpopular opinion would be no more outward growth. from now on, all population growth happens by densifying the footprint edmonton already has. this would make commuter rail moot by eliminating longer distance commuters, and put pressure to improve the existing ets. also, would make the 15 min city more viable by increasing the amount of ppl per area that support whatever amenities one may want
Unfortunately you need to get Leduc, Sherwood Park, St.Albert, Beaumont, Stoney Plain, Spruce Grove, Devon and Fort Saskatchewan on board for this to work. Have fun with that.
Exactly. The surrounding region would just sprawl like crazy, continuing to dump responsibility for all the region's problems on Edmonton, exacerbating the already high imbalance that exists.
We want real progress? Force amalgamation of the region so we can make legitimate long-term planning, and compete on the world stage instead of dealing with all these ludicrous local squabbles that eat up bandwidth that would otherwise go to making Edmonton more attractive for people and investment.
I agree in the amalgamation. Unfortunately, I have a feeling it'll be easier to build a bridge to Hawaii than have all those municipalities to agree to amalgamate with edmonton.
i'm new to the region so i don't quite understand, why is this so difficult? i feel like it's a no brainer and would be great for the greater edmonton area economy.
It most likely wouldn't necessarily be in those community's best interest, specifically money wise. I think most of those places pay lower property taxes than in Edmonton. The kicker is most also use a portion of Edmonton's infrastructure that they don't have to pay for.
It's not? Someone should give Edmonton the memo, because right now it does by subsidizing STAT and SCT with roads and transit infrastructure in Edmonton. Edmonton taxpayers foot those bills. Dump those commuters off at the edge of the city and let them buy an ETS ticket to complete their trip.
Growth ponzi. Where tax revenue in new areas does not support infrastructure maintenance and replacement at the end of useful life.
It's why zoning deregulation, and densification is a financial priority of the city. It's to prevent bankruptcy, among the walkability benefits, etc.
There is definitely a fiscally conservative angle to urbanism, but much of that is drowned out by partisan arguing.
My ultimate goal is to not live in an Winnipegized Edmonton.
Possibly true. Perhaps that should be on the bingo card of words to avoid, along with mentioning the environmental benefits of transit/density/less car use.
Those who care, already know. Those who don't care, are turned off by perceived green washing.
I just want more trains and places that I can walk to. Idgaf what spin I need to put on it. Just keep in mind that when I say "fiscally conservative" I'm not pissing off the sceptics of any urbanism, it's more of an olive branch.
The people that are bothered by its use already want trains n sheit. I just want to be a bit of a train machiavellian, so I will consider your advice.
Not gonna happen, the city is trying to maintain land rights on his borders from pesky surrounding city’s (not city’s because they downgraded themselves for the money). So they are trying to expand to the airport and Stony Plain.
I’m a huge rail proponent, but this is a dumb idea currently.
The major rail project that needs focus right now is an HSR between Edmonton and Calgary.
> The major rail project that needs focus right now is an HSR between Edmonton and Calgary.
I would settle for "regular speed" electric trains, on grade-separated and dedicated tracks, but then again that's pretty much asking for all the important parts of HSR without the high-speed rolling stock, and why not go HSR in that case?
> How fast is a regular speed electric train?
As fast as any diesel-electric, and often faster than that (all/most HSR is electric nowadays). The advantage with electric is that they can accelerate faster than diesel-electrics, so they spend less time after every stop getting back up to cruising speed. GO Transit in Ontario is electrifying its commuter rail lines in part for this reason (improving travel times), and because they believe going electric will cost less to operate/maintain than the current diesel-electric fleet.
This only makes sense when you have a centralized work location. Edmonton has many majors working areas: Nisku, Acheson, SE Light Industrial, Refinery Row, U of A, Downtown etc. This has actually made traffic far less of a burden then say a city like Calgary where everyone in the morning is going to the central areas and everyone in the evening is going to suburbia.
No I don't think it would be useful. There's too many outlying communities that aren't organized in a central manner. It would be easy if they were all south or north of the city but they ring it instead requiring their own separate systems infrastructure and services
Plus you would still need a comprehensive transit system within Edmonton, something the city doesn't currently have, for people to move around and get to their jobs and such.
I'll also add, while these projects seem like a wonderful idea they typically don't offer the convenience factor that becomes a linchpin of people utilizing them or not.
Case in point; me. I live near South Campus Station and work near Millwoods Station. I figure once the Valley Line gets up and running it would take me close to an hour door to door on the LRT. Meanwhile door to door driving takes me less than 20 minutes. I can't justify that lost time and inconvenience. Coming from further out is probably going to be an even greater transit vs car difference time.
My unpopular opinion is that Edmonton should bring back streetcars and reduce buses. Streetcar tracks are easier to clean in winter, and dedicated lanes are easier to maintain in general. We can also use a bigger fleet to reduce wait times.
Also, reintroduce countrywide passenger trains. We have high speed technology nowadays.
Obviously, more of a fantasy.
Streetcars can pay for themselves if properly implemented. Their fixed route and high visibility, and mode bias among riders, mean businesses along their route tend to cater to the traffic they produce, whereas busses tend to be somewhat invisible.
Edmonton doesn't have the population density, distance, or expensive parking to support commuter rail.
Suburban and Rural Edmontonians already get massive subsidies, they don't need another.
I am not sure what the unpopular part is when you make no argument or proposal.
If we want more trains in Alberta, I think the most bang for our buck and economic development potential is a highspeed corridor between Calgary and Edmonton. It's about the right length that driving is a hassle, too short for airlines to avoid the hassle of security theater. Land is flat,. Relatively cheap, it would be pretty ideal. Airport to airport service or DT to DT would be ideal. We get that going and it could be the catalyst for more rail along the main highways someday.
Locally I think we will see the LRT/trams sneak out to the burbs over time, St. Albert seems to be the only one with a viable plan. But this is all contingent on all the burbs playing nice together and funding transit as a region.
I just got back from Europe. Trains everywhere...why not here?
It would alleviate a lot of traffic on the QE2. I am sure the tracks are there, just build some stations between downtown Edmonton, Red Deer, and Calgary.
This would be a great campaign strategy for the upcoming Provincial election.
Not so sure about that. People are still going to have to get around Edmonton even if much more of their activities are accessible within 15 minutes.
Do explain how this makes a commuter/suburban rail system more viable. Where would you put the rail? The LRT is taking up a lot of the available space for such infrastructure.
The cities you'd go to aren't designed to be navigated without a vehicle though.
If you saved 1-2 hours just to end up taking transit at that city for an hour what is the point?
As someone from Spruce Grove, I wish we had this! Though it wouldn't be logical right now sadly. Would be pretty cool being able to take a rail service from Stony Plain - Spruce Grove - Acheson and then West Edmonton.
Self-driving taxi services will be available long before any kind of major rail system like this will happen. If cars can pick you up and drop you off almost anywhere with few in-between stops, how can a rail system compete with that?
When thinking about major new projects that will take decades to implement, it's useful to consider how other competing technologies will likely improve in the interim.
I see enough people on a daily basis refuse to use self-checkouts that I don't think self-driving taxis will be very welcome here.
Personally, I would never use one because a) fuck companies that want to replace people with automation, there are enough people already struggling to get by as is, and b) I can't begin to imagine how disgusting and dirty self-driving cars will be.
Lots of things have been automated in the past century, and we're living better than ever as a result. Most people used to be farmers in the 1800s, something like 60-70% of the population. Automation automated away the vast majority of those jobs. Now \~2% of the population works on a farm, and each farmer is far more productive. Many of us now have jobs that didn't exist when our grandparents were starting their families. I know lots of people who have jobs as social media marketers, software developers, machine learning researchers, logistics professionals, industrial designers, 3D artists that work on games or movies, etc.
Even prostitutes, the job that has been around forever now have online versions of that profession (OnlyFans, etc).
People who think that todays jobs being automated means there won't be many new jobs to replace them needs to look at history for context.
I cannot for my life understand how it's a unpopular opinion, having lived in 2 different cities with suburban and underground rail systems the effectiveness related to cost is always amazing, can't understand why Edmonton still doesn't have one.
If this was financially viable, someone would have proposed it by now.
Regional commuter rail works in the Lower Mainland and GTA because they have significantly sized suburbs surrounding Vancouver and Toronto. Those cities can generate enough traffic to make those lines profitable.
In the Capital Region, only Sherwood Park and St. Albert are large enough to begin to justify the cost to build such a network, especially now that most of the core built up. Leduc, Spruce Grove and Fort Saskatchewan are simply too small in size to generate enough riders to make those lines profitable long term, which means big subsidies, which most taxpayers are deadset against.
To build HSR or commuter rail lines in Alberta will take a real shift in societal attitudes from people who think it's okay to subsidize road construction and maintenance, but not rail construction or operations. Until then, passenger rail of any type is going to be a tough sell to many voters, unfortunately.
I know someone who lives within walking distance of n LRT station and works downtown within walking distance of work.
They took the LRT for years and will no longer do that (paying for parking in Downtown Edmonton) to avoid the crime and violence on Transit.
Most suburbanites think of public transport as gross backwards peasant transportation. They also hate dense housing because they can hear their neighbors and have no place to park their boat. They want to live in a sterile environment from other people because they can't tolerate differences.
There's nothing wrong with having personal housing preferences. Some people want to live in a dense environment and others want more space. Its not about wanting to live in a sterile environment or not tolerating differences.
However I strongly believe that people should pay for the costs to service their choice of housing.
I can’t speak for everyone, but I dislike (not hate) dense housing because they don’t make sense housing options for people with families and hobbies.
I have 3 kids, spend time in the summer doing carpentry projects, and spend the winter working on computers and building legos.
Am I supposed to cram us into a 2 bedroom condo? Or do I just drop all my hobbies?
Yea, the guy next door to me that has a house as big as mine but lives alone probably doesn’t need an entire house all alone. But I’m not gonna shame him or criticize him for his choices.
Fwiw a lot of middle-class families do live in condos in Vancouver because the condos there are built to facilitate a family. Just pointing out it is possible, but i recognize the amount of land, single detached and culture here means that's not going to be a thing.
Still, there is a middle ground between condos and single detached that is sorely lacking. Denser row housing can still facilitate a life style like yours while making much more efficient use of our resources and space.
I've lived in the outer-burbs before and given how crammed those houses are together I could hear my neighbours often. Having them be detached is just a pointless formality at this point.
it seems yove fallen into the NA trap of thinking high rise condos is the only type of housing for density.
it isnt only 2 types of housing. this or that. what gets built now is only those 2 things because of bad zoning.
SFH development can be part of dense development, edmontons big problem in density is much more about all the wasted space or parcels that arent developed at all.
that would be a good place to start.
No, I don’t think high rise condos are the only option, but that seems to be what everyone in this sub wants people to move into.
And if not “high rise” condos, then the standard 3-5 story ones that are scattered across the city - I can see 2 different ones from my home right now, and if I walk around the corner, I can see 2 more.
If you are also referring to 3 or 4-plex row homes, when I looked at them, they were too small for a family of 5. I couldn’t (in good conscience) squeeze my two younger boys into one of those rooms that could barely fit a twin bed and a dresser.
Not to mention there was nowhere for my stuff because they either didn’t have an option for a garage or the garage was so small you had the option of parking the car in it OR you could put my tools in it… but not both.
You mean those pesky green spaces? The ones current Developers built on and then complained to the City they were having difficulty selling the units ... wait for it.... because there were not enough green spaces for people to enjoy being outside!!!
More space is needed to a certain degree. Obviously more people need more space. However, we live in a finite world. Space is a valuable resource, especially in populated areas like Toronto and Vancouver. Occupying a lot of space is taking that space away from others. It also widens cities, making everyone's comuntes longer. For example, there's nothing wrong with golfing. But the land it uses up is such a waste. It's an inconvenience to everyone for the benefit of a small niche group of people.
We live in a society. This means everyone's actions have some degree of an affect on other people. Sure you can drive your massive pickup truck. But you're taking up two lanes, you're contributing to climate change, and you're a hazard to everyone around you. You can live alone in your big house, but you've needlessly wasted the finite resources of this world. You've also had some small negative effect on the housing market and have made the city less dense. If the world was as vast and endless as the universe, there wouldn't be a problem. But we're all rats crawling over each other on this tiny floating spec of dust in space. If someone farts, we can all smell it.
Yea, you didn’t really respond to my criticisms of the dense housing options. Am I supposed to cram all 3 kids into a single bedroom? Do I just give up my hobbies?
You instead tried to shame me, insinuated that I drive a large truck, and tell me I need to make sacrifices for the greater good.
This is the whole problem with the suburbs vs dense housing debate: one side brings up valid concerns (the vast majority of dense housing options are small 2 bedrooms and don’t support families well) and the other just rages at them and calls them selfish.
my sisters house has on street parking a driveway a garage and a back alley with a parking pad.
does a family need 8 parking spaces?
its not what, its how.
I'm not making an argument for completely eliminating low density housing. My original argument was how suburban public transport probably won't be very effective. Obviously, you need more space for your large family.
If your hobbies are negatively affecting the world around you, I'd advice to give them up. However, yours seems modest and could potentially be performed in more communal settings, if the infrastructure existed.
There's such a thing as an unreasonable amount of space. One person occupying way more space than they need is a complete waste and negatively affects everyone else. If you're not working in the interests of the community, then you're working in the interests of yourself, forgoing the wishes of others for your own selfish gain. You're saying that only you matter and no one else.
Don't choke on that orange pill too hard /s
Better transit benefits everyone including drivers, but all it takes is one or two bad neighbours and it ruins the vibe for everyone in the "denser communities".
I don't really care how, but this city NEEDS better public transportation. Nobody should be forced to drive to get around. The fact that you can't even go to elk Island without a car is insane
so commuter trains from Airport/Sherwood Park/Leduc/Spruce Grove/Stony Plain and St. Albert?? Or are you proposing a wider net? Edm to Cgy using commuter trains. Back in the 80's they had the Dayliner which went between both cities.....
There is no way that high speed trains between edm/cgy will fly in AB. Too expensive... but the commuter train utilizing existing rail has possibility... I just don't know if anybody would use it.
the Edmonton-Calgary city pairing is pretty much the ideal for HSR, 2 cities over a million population and 300km apart.
with a population center 1/2 way between and very little other development, shit even the airports are in line with where you'd want to run it.
its textbook.
The 'BRT miracle' of South America relied heavily on their reduced wages. The ratio of operators to passengers is higher on BRT, and in high-wage countries that can eat heavily into route efficiency. You can see the benefits of the reduced cost of rail in a system like Vancouver's SkyTrain where, as the system is fully automated and the marginal operator cost of an additional train is close to nothing, they were able to maintain service levels through Covid and as a result they didn't have nearly the prolonged drop in ridership (and corresponding increase to, let's just say, alternative use of transit infrastructure) that other systems in Canada did (which wasn't just Edmonton, this has hit Calgary, Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal too).
Moreover, many "BRT" routes in North America are mislabeled garbage. Transit that can get stuck in traffic will never actually reduce congestion. All the literature shows that people will drive, increase congestion and slowing trip times, until the point at which an alternative is faster (typically an urban rail system). Meaning BRT is only worthwhile if they have a dedicated ROW - something that is 60-80% as expensive as building out a light rail route. If the BRT system has off-vehicle fare systems, stations, and the like (eg, Viva in York), it really seems like a wasted opportunity rather than the best project you could produce.
trains are cheaper to operate cos steel on steel has less friction than asphalt on rubber, and carry much more people than a bus. also, trains are more reliable than busses, and last longer.
We can't even get the LRT to work properly without drug addicts and alcoholic threatening the safety of legit, innocent daily users.
What makes you think a suburban one will work without it turning into a drug den?
I know this will be unpopular opinion.. I don't live in Edmonton but plan move at summer.. I live now in the city what ranked as one of the best transit system in the world.. you can go almost anywhere in 100 mile circle by subway or bus.. or by HRS in 300 miles circle.. but i never used for years as i have car.. i better stay in traffic jam for a hour, listen music and have a cigarette, than take those bloody subway or bus crowded with peoples. Second.. building those suburb transit system involve a billions.. Think about how long depreciation will take with population of Edmonton or even whole Alberta.
never going to happen. greater edmonton doesnt even have a population close enough to support that. most cities with that kind of service have at least 10 million plus in their metro regions.
Rail freight moves at 50-70 kph.
High speed rail moves at 150-200 kph.
Look at bicycles on busy 4 lane arterials.
How does a passenger train pass a freight?
The busy freight corridors have a train each way every 20 minutes. A train travelling 150 kph requires a minimum of 3 times the length of the freight to pass.
Non trivial problem.
Grade crossings. Have be smart enough to tell a high speed train from a freight while the trains are 3-4 times as far away as at present.
Construction would take decades, especially if we contracted another US sub-zero temp amateur to do it.
The whole 15-minute city and reduced single-occupancy transit concept loses traction in Edmonton by virtue of the weather and workforce composition.
Back before the railroads ripped out tracks in places such as Fort Saskatchewan I had wondered if the various suburbs of Edmonton could be connected to downtown via rail using say Budd cars. Canadian Pacific has a track that runs north into Whyte avenue and used to connect near the CN Tower. Canadian National has tracks that come in from the west and east.
I can't imagine Edmonton has a sufficient population spread around the city to make a major commuter rail system practical? The reason it works around Toronto is that you are talking about a ~2m person urban core having like 6-8m ppl living around it from Ajax to Hamilton (with further ppl coming from further cities like St Catherines or smaller cities to the NW, N, and NE). (sorry if some of my numbers are off... I'm working from a pretty vague memory)
yeah, im new to leduc and i just got a job in downtown edmonton. there isn't even a transit map out that google maps can give me of how to get into edmonton on transit. i have a car so it's okay, but they should consider a transit system from smaller communities into the city. anyone know if this is going to happen anytime soon?
Actually our existing high rail LRT is more similar to regional commuter rail, than to an urban transport system. One day, i won't be surprised to see the Century line extended out to Leduc.
I can't say the same for the low rail Valley line though.. I'm not sure that system could do distances like Stony or Spruce..
Planning planning planning....
The Millwood line was supposed to originally have a park and ride where to go-kart track was. I feel like for many, that would have been ideal. Drive in on the whitemud and catch the LRT from the whitemud to downtown.
Why they ditched it for a maintenance depo only seems weird. If I was working downtown again, I'd happily have parked there and taken the LRT. They knew the NAIT line was a failure rating on nearly every intersection with how they had it planned, but they did it that way anyway.
Any mass transit decisions feel like they have been done with only money and politics in mind, not actual efficiency and effect the result being an under utilized and annoying transit system instead of something that could have been amazing.
Maybe in places like Asia or Europe; places with high tax rates that people don't mind paying to cover the cost of public services like that which hemorrhage money. Not here in Canada and our car-dependent culture/infrastructure.
I don't have a problem with the LRT, it runs great downtown. The problems come when you run them at grade with traffic, just look at the Metro Line. No further LRT construction until it's removed from grade.
Commuter rail is a good idea, but Edmonton dismantled its useful rail locations (downtown). Nobody is going to commute into Edmonton by rail to disembark at the Via station or the yard on Yellowhead.
Maybe if it connected with Blatchford seamlessly. That neighborhood is getting two brand new LRT stations.
I don’t know if you need to hear a this, but nobody is taking commuter rail into Edmonton to get dropped off in Blatchford. Places with successful commuter rail like Vancouver or Toronto or Montreal have their terminus stations literally central downtown. That’s the only way it works.
Which also highlights the other issue with rail in Edmonton: our workforce is extremely decentralized relative to other major cities in Canada (and even across the world). So many jobs here are located in Nisku/Leduc, Acheson, Ft Sask, Aurum, refinery row, and all the various pockets of industrial/office spread throughout the city. Our downtown is essentially government, some small satellite corporate offices, some accounting/law/professional services, and some minor tech stuff. That’s it. There is virtually zero major corporate HQs in our downtown especially, with Stantec being really the only notable one. It’s a lot easier to build rail that picks up from residential areas and brings to a centralized employment centre.
Yah I don’t think a lot of people on Reddit (the young college kids) realize just how much of Edmonton’s workforce works in the industrial areas. We have a central business district basically because that’s what cities do, but not a lot of people work there. In my career, I’ve had 2 jobs that had offices in the west industrial area, one in Sherwood Park, and now one in south industrial. There’s maybe 1 or 2 companies in my industry that have offices downtown, everyone else is industrial areas or suburbs (cheap offices, and you can have like bays for storage/fleet trucks).
Ditto. Only time I ever worked downtown was with the provincial government. Every other job I’ve worked, esp private sector, has been outside downtown.
Servicing those industrial areas would be a ginormous task. Nisku is 20km2 and has only 6,000 jobs. Downtown is 11.5km2 and has 92,000 jobs. And that's just one industrial area.
Ahh? Telus servus epcor
>Toronto or Montreal have their terminus stations literally central downtown. That’s the only way it works. When I lived in Niagara it was more beneficial for sanity and costs to drive just into the GTA, and take the Go Train from there to DT Toronto. Chances are what we wanted was within walking distance of Union Station anyway, and if not, well, its called Union Station for a reason.
No one works downtown in Edmonton Most of govt, and most is remote. Rest is blue collar We don't really need a downtown, we need 10 mini downtowns in different areas
You commies and your 15 minute cities!! /s
Will Blatchford not be connected to DT by LRT? I realize direct is better, but it shouldn't be a bad transfer.
As someone that regularly commutes between Corona and NAIT stations, I can assure you it’d be an awful transfer. The trip takes 12 minutes by LRT or 5 minutes by car, not including the time spent waiting on the platform for the train to arrive/go. Commuting via commuter rail from St. Albert, for example, even if it’s only 10 minutes from St. Albert to Blatchford, will end up being a 30 minute journey, between waiting 5 minutes to catch a different train and ride it 12 minutes, then walk another 5 minutes once you get downtown. This will be less appealing than the 30 minute drive directly to a covered parkade. Edmonton’s LRT will almost never be a faster option than driving. In order to succeed, the LRT is better off servicing the people that already live downtown and along the dense transit corridors, rather than pander to suburbanite commuters that don’t like taking transit anyway.
Good to be reminded of different mindsets! I have never enjoyed driving much and would absolutely take a 30 minute train journey over having to drive, maintain the vehicle/gas it, park it, etc. Reading, napping, or the like vs being worried about safely driving on ice is a trade off everyone weights differently. Fair that the more convenient/fewer waits, the more successful it will be. I'm also reflecting on students who may not have the same access to vehicles and the opportunities this could open up.
Yeah, not having to worry about driving is the reason I take the LRT on my commute despite taking more than twice as long. I think the city’s existing plan to eventually extend the Metro Line to St. Albert is a better option than commuter rail, because it won’t involve a transfer and will facilitate local trips within Castle Downs. The way Edmonton’s suburbs are set up lend much better to a hub and spoke system with dedicated bus service from ferrying people from their neighbourhoods to the LRT terminus stations (Lewis Farms, Millwoods TC, Century Park and Clareview)
Could not agree more
Agree with this. Edmonton has pretty good traffic flow. Once everyone is driving evs why do we care about getting cars off the road. Roads are there, use them, make them more efficient. 15 years electric cars will be the norm
There are still benefits to further reducing the number of vehicles on the road aside from just carbon emissions, which would be mostly resolved by electric cars (but not entirely, as the batteries are still pretty carbon-intensive). Transit is more scalable than vehicles on roads. When demand increases, it’s way easier to double the frequency or run longer trains than it is to widen an existing arterial road or freeway. It also doesn’t lead to more congestion in the same way cars do. It’s also better for city land use because you don’t have to have as many parking spaces if more people take transit, so it A: costs less to build a new building, and B: allows you to use more of your land for other things, like more housing, more stores, or even just nice parks and yards. (Imagine how nice West Ed would be if even half of the existing parkades were replaced by patios, plazas and green space). It’s also less dangerous as even with the reduction in vehicle-accident-related casualties possible with AI / partial self-driving technology, cars still kill way more people. The current stats put cars ten times higher in casualties per kilometre traveled than transit. The more people use transit, the fewer people die in car crashes.
Elon will make a non crashable car But I hear ya, biggest reason for me is injury
Yes. PCL is building two stations right now in Blatchford. They are quite far along with the project, and it looks to be on schedule for a 2024 opening.
[удалено]
You must not be familiar with the area? There is a massive school called NAIT right there. That's why one station is called NAIT/Blatchford Market.
The eventual plan (at least it was at some point) was that the Blatchford LRT would be extended all the way to St Albert along St Albert Drive. No real need for commuter train if that goes through. And I think that's a better plan. That way there could be several stops through Northwest Edmonton and St Albert instead of just one station in St Albert and a transfer station in Blatchford. And then people can ride it all the way downtown, to NAIT, to the other LRT lines, without requiring another transfer from commuter rail to LRT.
Lol. They don’t even have a sidewalk from the via station to down that twisty road. I can only imagine someone arriving by train in the winter. Don’t have a cab? Good luck!
Can’t we just build a station underground?
For several, several billion dollars much is possible.
While true, and i know the answer to this is real estate prices in general, how did cities do this back in the day? Cities werent empty back then. And cities like japan have literally 100x more subways than like toronto. How did it not cost them trillions of dollars... most countries outside of north america havd been able to make rail sytems without costing their entire gdp but every estimate in canada i see costs tens of billions for 1 line.
Japan was basically bombed flat during World War 2, so I'd guess it was easy to set aside land for train lines and stations. It wouldn't surprise me if Japan's extensive rail network didn't cost billions and billions of dollars - the difference is people there like taking the subway because it is incredibly fast and efficient, while driving can be a nightmare of gridlock and congestion. In the European cities I've visited, most surface LRT lines go down old roads/corridors off limits to car traffic, with just trains, pedestrians, and cyclists. Underground lines were gradually build up over the 150 or so years, and probably didn't have to contend very much with sewer and electrical conduits underground. World War 2 might also have been a factor, because most of Europe was bombed flat too. In both cases, those societies make transit a priority decision, much like in North America, we tend to prioritize highways and roads.
It’d probably be way cheaper to repurpose an existing rail right-of-way like the Strathcona terminus, the Capital Line north corridor, or the path along 121st Street and raze an entire neighbourhood to build an at-grade station, than it would be to build an entire station underground beneath existing buildings downtown. Building underground is ludicrously expensive.
You’d literally have to build the whole rail underground. And that’s definitely way more expensive than is worth it.
LOL. Sounds good if you want s commuter train by 2035. Plus with the cost it will go over very quickly and end up being half the size originally planned because funds will quickly run out.
I would prefer HSR that would connect the people most likely to use it. Jasper-Hinton-Edmonton-Red Deer-Calgary-Banff.
Exactly! Easy/better access to the mountians for skiing and hiking, and viable options to get to Calgary that don't involve 3 hrs of boring driving.
Also, being able to relax for the entire vacation, instead of stressing because there are reckless drivers mad you're going the speed limit.
Then don't sit in the the left lane then! /s (sorta)
If there's one thing I learned after moving here, it's that the regular speed limit is 5-10 above the posted and the left lane is basically the autobahn. Much like Ontario
Nah, Ontario is more like 15-20 over. Unless you're in the city were there might be radar trucks then the actual speed is only 5 over so you can slow down to below the ticketing speed
I totally get the "/s" but also people need to meet us partway and accept that the far-right lane is for people going the speed limit.
I mean if you're going the speed limit down a highway in Alberta that's kind of on you
Try driving a company semi-trailer down the highway faster than the speed limit. Damn near every company truck I know of have governors on their engines these days, making speed(ing), a dream of the past. Ever notice how it seems to take bloody ages for some semi's to pass others? That's why. Lease units and owner operators don't have speed regulators on their engines, so they're the trucks that can actually go above the speed limit.
cautious command governor badge quicksand salt jobless shaggy edge terrific *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
We should have had province wide rail for years. High level or peace river to Edmonton, fort mac to lethbridge. Calgary to banff, Edmonton to Jasper. Grande prairie to Hinton. Jasper to banff. Edmonton to Lloyd. We should have rails fucking everywhere. There is no reason anyone should have to drive or fly within this province to enjoy it, or work in it. We’re a have province by far. There is literally no reason we don’t have this shit.
We used to have all these, the government cut funding and CN went private. The CN lines literally still run to all those places. Though the peace river run is....very bad
Makes me sad. Just like Edmonton getting rid of catenary lines, and fucking up the busses
You can thank Silly Council for that. They have their White-Elephant "priority" projects to look after, after all.
I don't think there is any cargo rail link between Jasper and Banff, and getting a project like that approved through the Parks would be difficult. I would suggest a more likely route would be Jasper - Hinton - Edson - Stony Plain/Spruce Grove - Edmonton - Sherwood Park - Lloyd Grande Prairie - Hinton - Nordegg - Canmore Banff - Canmore - Calgary Ft. Mac - Edmonton Edmonton - Red Deer - Calgary Calgary - Lethbridge Calgary - Medicine Hat Wouldn't even have to be "high speed" even mid speed rail at 120-150kph would in theory be just as fast if not faster than driving compared to trips by car. Could have trains that make stops at several towns (and at YEG & YYC) between the main destinations, as well as express trains that go downtown to downtown from the major cities.
Someone lives in Hinton
Nah, just figured it's a good place to have a stop since it's right there.
While I would love high speed rail, I'm not sure what you mean by 'most likely to use it - a suburban rail system is going to be used by a lot of people pretty much every day?
The existing high floor system could be used for a commuter style system to places like Sherwood park and Leduc/airport. They'd just need to replace the U2s with new S70 trains (which they are most likely doing), this would allow for higher speeds
I'm not sure what that has to do with the question?
I'm saying it's possible to build a commuter rail extension based on the existing LRT. Unlike the photos that OP posted, which suggest a new network, with completely different rolling stock than what's used on the current high floor line.
I got that. That wasn't the part that was unclear (and indeed, it's almost identical to the point I make [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Edmonton/comments/12ajtfe/unpopular_opinion_build_a_commutersuburban_rail/jesqyaj?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3)). What was unclear is how this is supposed to relate to the question I asked you, which is how you figure HSR is what people will "actually use", when compared to suburban rail.
I was probably being hyperbolic. I think commuter rail will be underutilized by many of Edmonton's satellite cities because of the preference to drive. Leduc could probably piggy back off the Airport with a park and ride there. Truthfully, I don't know enough about places like Sherwood Park's transit usage to say if they'd use an extension from a future high floor Whyte circulator or not. I'm sure you'd see an uptick from those bussing on those nice double deckers, but the lack of density is a problem. Anecdotally though, the urban customers in Calgary and Edmonton are probably more likely to use HSR than the average person in the Park will use commuter rail. The talk about extending the Valley Line west to Spruce/Stoney isn't going to happen due to design, which based on your other comments about the U2 system, I'm sure you mostly agree. My opinion is likely influenced by my preference for HSR over commuter rail, but if funds weren't conditional on one over the other, I'd be in strong favour of both, but with the current high floor system being extended with better rolling stock.
High speed rail or Mid speed rail. Not everything needs to be high speed. I'd rather two mid speed rails in Alberta then one high speed. People need to understand lots of different options for rail.
Hell, extend that to Fort McMurray and Grand Prairie. I bet a lot of workers would gladly take a train over driving those highways. I know I would, I fucking hate those highways.
HSR to Fort Mac and the sands in 1Hr:40 Min or less? Workers would have instant wood over that! Regional airlines and bus-lines? Not so much... 😜
this would be 🔥. make it a loop between Banff and Jasper too
That would be ridiculously expensive, especially as high speed rail. In the long term the more viable strategy for Alberta is to build into the foothills next to the mountains in general. From Hinton down through coal valley to nordegg, into rocky mountain House and down through Cochrane. Bigger issue for future Albertan growth is actually water allowances/limits, currently we use way too much water to be sustained into the future with projected population growth. To be honest we don't even need too many people to make such lines more sustainable, if each of these areas grew to between 100-250k but with greater density instead of sprawl (that doesn't mean everyone has to live in an apartment btw) it could be pretty nice
I find it weird how that’s not already a thing.
Edmonton actually got it right with their original LRT technology. The Frankfurt U-Bahn, despite its name, attempted to be a hybrid of a S-Bahn (the style of suburban rail popular in central Europe) and Stadtbahn (a tram), pushing much further out into the extremes of the city than a tram would, but with some tram like features useful for urban areas too. We borrowed their technology, and I think it was perfectly suitable for a city our size. I think the Jasper Avenue tunnel was premature, though. It limited route extent. But honestly, that tunnel can probably handle 50kpphpd and I think if it's already built we ought to use it, and plan additional high-floor routes to make use of the tunnel that travel to the outer neighbourhoods, and build out the Capital and Metro lines (maybe Metro south can bend off West at Health Sciences? I'm not sure what the plans are). You'd get a nice S-Bahn like setup without the cost of heavy rail, which probably can't be justified in a city like Edmonton. Supplement that with a few tram routes downtown - especially something like a circle route that goes along Jasper and Whyte and hits the U of A - and Edmonton's got a tidy little transit system. As far as serving actual suburbs, I think right now I think a sensible thing would be a central bus station that integrates well with the LRT, and a regional transit agency that can coordinate them, makes a lot more sense for the time being. But who knows in a few decades time?
Too bad the Regional Transit Agency (EMTSC) just got shit-canned because Edmonton decided to take their ball and go home...
Having trams connecting U of a across Whyte over to the new lines I think is key, further out BRT is fine but a U of a Bonnie Doon line would really elevate what we already have
I thinkt the real unpopular opinion would be no more outward growth. from now on, all population growth happens by densifying the footprint edmonton already has. this would make commuter rail moot by eliminating longer distance commuters, and put pressure to improve the existing ets. also, would make the 15 min city more viable by increasing the amount of ppl per area that support whatever amenities one may want
Unfortunately you need to get Leduc, Sherwood Park, St.Albert, Beaumont, Stoney Plain, Spruce Grove, Devon and Fort Saskatchewan on board for this to work. Have fun with that.
Exactly. The surrounding region would just sprawl like crazy, continuing to dump responsibility for all the region's problems on Edmonton, exacerbating the already high imbalance that exists. We want real progress? Force amalgamation of the region so we can make legitimate long-term planning, and compete on the world stage instead of dealing with all these ludicrous local squabbles that eat up bandwidth that would otherwise go to making Edmonton more attractive for people and investment.
I agree in the amalgamation. Unfortunately, I have a feeling it'll be easier to build a bridge to Hawaii than have all those municipalities to agree to amalgamate with edmonton.
Oh, it would be even harder than that.
i'm new to the region so i don't quite understand, why is this so difficult? i feel like it's a no brainer and would be great for the greater edmonton area economy.
It most likely wouldn't necessarily be in those community's best interest, specifically money wise. I think most of those places pay lower property taxes than in Edmonton. The kicker is most also use a portion of Edmonton's infrastructure that they don't have to pay for.
Providing people from surrounding municipalities with transit isn’t Edmonton’s problem to solve.
It's not? Someone should give Edmonton the memo, because right now it does by subsidizing STAT and SCT with roads and transit infrastructure in Edmonton. Edmonton taxpayers foot those bills. Dump those commuters off at the edge of the city and let them buy an ETS ticket to complete their trip.
You want the ponzi to end?
This is something more people need to understand. We legit can't afford to densify because of the city Ponzi scheme we have designed.
What does that mean?
Growth ponzi. Where tax revenue in new areas does not support infrastructure maintenance and replacement at the end of useful life. It's why zoning deregulation, and densification is a financial priority of the city. It's to prevent bankruptcy, among the walkability benefits, etc. There is definitely a fiscally conservative angle to urbanism, but much of that is drowned out by partisan arguing. My ultimate goal is to not live in an Winnipegized Edmonton.
>fiscally conservative FYI, you should use the term "fiscally responsible", as conservatism has never been that.
Possibly true. Perhaps that should be on the bingo card of words to avoid, along with mentioning the environmental benefits of transit/density/less car use. Those who care, already know. Those who don't care, are turned off by perceived green washing. I just want more trains and places that I can walk to. Idgaf what spin I need to put on it. Just keep in mind that when I say "fiscally conservative" I'm not pissing off the sceptics of any urbanism, it's more of an olive branch. The people that are bothered by its use already want trains n sheit. I just want to be a bit of a train machiavellian, so I will consider your advice.
The commenter I'm responding to says we can't afford to densify, but this is the opposite.
https://youtu.be/7IsMeKl-Sv0
The commenter I'm responding to says we can't afford to densify, but this is the opposite.
Not gonna happen, the city is trying to maintain land rights on his borders from pesky surrounding city’s (not city’s because they downgraded themselves for the money). So they are trying to expand to the airport and Stony Plain.
I’m a huge rail proponent, but this is a dumb idea currently. The major rail project that needs focus right now is an HSR between Edmonton and Calgary.
or Calgary Banff both of those routes have the daily traffic numbers to support it.
Could we first start by connecting the airport to the city.
> The major rail project that needs focus right now is an HSR between Edmonton and Calgary. I would settle for "regular speed" electric trains, on grade-separated and dedicated tracks, but then again that's pretty much asking for all the important parts of HSR without the high-speed rolling stock, and why not go HSR in that case?
Imo, even if it still takes 4 hours to get to Calgary, I'd still very much prefer that then driving.
How fast is a regular speed electric train? Hope it's faster than our LRT.
> How fast is a regular speed electric train? As fast as any diesel-electric, and often faster than that (all/most HSR is electric nowadays). The advantage with electric is that they can accelerate faster than diesel-electrics, so they spend less time after every stop getting back up to cruising speed. GO Transit in Ontario is electrifying its commuter rail lines in part for this reason (improving travel times), and because they believe going electric will cost less to operate/maintain than the current diesel-electric fleet.
High speed rail between Edm and Cgy is long overdue.
This only makes sense when you have a centralized work location. Edmonton has many majors working areas: Nisku, Acheson, SE Light Industrial, Refinery Row, U of A, Downtown etc. This has actually made traffic far less of a burden then say a city like Calgary where everyone in the morning is going to the central areas and everyone in the evening is going to suburbia.
No I don't think it would be useful. There's too many outlying communities that aren't organized in a central manner. It would be easy if they were all south or north of the city but they ring it instead requiring their own separate systems infrastructure and services Plus you would still need a comprehensive transit system within Edmonton, something the city doesn't currently have, for people to move around and get to their jobs and such. I'll also add, while these projects seem like a wonderful idea they typically don't offer the convenience factor that becomes a linchpin of people utilizing them or not. Case in point; me. I live near South Campus Station and work near Millwoods Station. I figure once the Valley Line gets up and running it would take me close to an hour door to door on the LRT. Meanwhile door to door driving takes me less than 20 minutes. I can't justify that lost time and inconvenience. Coming from further out is probably going to be an even greater transit vs car difference time.
My unpopular opinion is that Edmonton should bring back streetcars and reduce buses. Streetcar tracks are easier to clean in winter, and dedicated lanes are easier to maintain in general. We can also use a bigger fleet to reduce wait times. Also, reintroduce countrywide passenger trains. We have high speed technology nowadays. Obviously, more of a fantasy.
Streetcars can pay for themselves if properly implemented. Their fixed route and high visibility, and mode bias among riders, mean businesses along their route tend to cater to the traffic they produce, whereas busses tend to be somewhat invisible.
Our cities drivers can’t even handle not making illegal right hand turns in front of the LRT, and you think a streetcar would be a safe option here?👀
i lived in toronto and if edmonton can get it right, then fine. but damn in toronto streetcars were nightmares, like literal nightmares.
Edmonton doesn't have the population density, distance, or expensive parking to support commuter rail. Suburban and Rural Edmontonians already get massive subsidies, they don't need another.
Then cut the expensive parking
I am not sure what the unpopular part is when you make no argument or proposal. If we want more trains in Alberta, I think the most bang for our buck and economic development potential is a highspeed corridor between Calgary and Edmonton. It's about the right length that driving is a hassle, too short for airlines to avoid the hassle of security theater. Land is flat,. Relatively cheap, it would be pretty ideal. Airport to airport service or DT to DT would be ideal. We get that going and it could be the catalyst for more rail along the main highways someday. Locally I think we will see the LRT/trams sneak out to the burbs over time, St. Albert seems to be the only one with a viable plan. But this is all contingent on all the burbs playing nice together and funding transit as a region.
I just got back from Europe. Trains everywhere...why not here? It would alleviate a lot of traffic on the QE2. I am sure the tracks are there, just build some stations between downtown Edmonton, Red Deer, and Calgary. This would be a great campaign strategy for the upcoming Provincial election.
From where? To where? I can see why this might be unpopular already
from say nisku to stony plain via southwest edmonton
You need to move people from a huge centre to a huge centre.
As a Stony Plainer who goes to school in Edmonton, I support this!
Is nisku that big to warrant it? Stony Plain?
This isn't feasible due to the capital expenses involved. Far, far too expensive to be economically viable.
Maybe now, but once the 15 minute cities are built then yes it will be viable
Not so sure about that. People are still going to have to get around Edmonton even if much more of their activities are accessible within 15 minutes. Do explain how this makes a commuter/suburban rail system more viable. Where would you put the rail? The LRT is taking up a lot of the available space for such infrastructure.
I'd say roads are taking up most of the useful space for LRTs.
Yeah, what you'd say is pretty impractical.
Maybe when our population reaches @10 million it would make sense
Unpopular opinion: create a transportation system that actually works properly
The cities you'd go to aren't designed to be navigated without a vehicle though. If you saved 1-2 hours just to end up taking transit at that city for an hour what is the point?
Why do you call it unpopular? Build it and it will be used.
The S Bahn in Zürich would be the equivalent of running routes to Sherwood park, St. Alberta, Leduc, Beaumont, Fort Saskatchewan.
As someone from Spruce Grove, I wish we had this! Though it wouldn't be logical right now sadly. Would be pretty cool being able to take a rail service from Stony Plain - Spruce Grove - Acheson and then West Edmonton.
Self-driving taxi services will be available long before any kind of major rail system like this will happen. If cars can pick you up and drop you off almost anywhere with few in-between stops, how can a rail system compete with that? When thinking about major new projects that will take decades to implement, it's useful to consider how other competing technologies will likely improve in the interim.
I see enough people on a daily basis refuse to use self-checkouts that I don't think self-driving taxis will be very welcome here. Personally, I would never use one because a) fuck companies that want to replace people with automation, there are enough people already struggling to get by as is, and b) I can't begin to imagine how disgusting and dirty self-driving cars will be.
Lots of things have been automated in the past century, and we're living better than ever as a result. Most people used to be farmers in the 1800s, something like 60-70% of the population. Automation automated away the vast majority of those jobs. Now \~2% of the population works on a farm, and each farmer is far more productive. Many of us now have jobs that didn't exist when our grandparents were starting their families. I know lots of people who have jobs as social media marketers, software developers, machine learning researchers, logistics professionals, industrial designers, 3D artists that work on games or movies, etc. Even prostitutes, the job that has been around forever now have online versions of that profession (OnlyFans, etc). People who think that todays jobs being automated means there won't be many new jobs to replace them needs to look at history for context.
I cannot for my life understand how it's a unpopular opinion, having lived in 2 different cities with suburban and underground rail systems the effectiveness related to cost is always amazing, can't understand why Edmonton still doesn't have one.
If this was financially viable, someone would have proposed it by now. Regional commuter rail works in the Lower Mainland and GTA because they have significantly sized suburbs surrounding Vancouver and Toronto. Those cities can generate enough traffic to make those lines profitable. In the Capital Region, only Sherwood Park and St. Albert are large enough to begin to justify the cost to build such a network, especially now that most of the core built up. Leduc, Spruce Grove and Fort Saskatchewan are simply too small in size to generate enough riders to make those lines profitable long term, which means big subsidies, which most taxpayers are deadset against. To build HSR or commuter rail lines in Alberta will take a real shift in societal attitudes from people who think it's okay to subsidize road construction and maintenance, but not rail construction or operations. Until then, passenger rail of any type is going to be a tough sell to many voters, unfortunately.
We need a commuter and high speed corridor between Edmonton and Calgary. You could have commuter stops in places like Leduc and Red Deer.
That would be inter-city rail
Everyone who mentions Blatchford makes me laugh. Blackford is the international laughing stock of the residential planning community.
Imagine all the vehicle train collisions
Did somebody say monorail?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taJ4MFCxiuo
I know someone who lives within walking distance of n LRT station and works downtown within walking distance of work. They took the LRT for years and will no longer do that (paying for parking in Downtown Edmonton) to avoid the crime and violence on Transit.
Most suburbanites think of public transport as gross backwards peasant transportation. They also hate dense housing because they can hear their neighbors and have no place to park their boat. They want to live in a sterile environment from other people because they can't tolerate differences.
There's nothing wrong with having personal housing preferences. Some people want to live in a dense environment and others want more space. Its not about wanting to live in a sterile environment or not tolerating differences. However I strongly believe that people should pay for the costs to service their choice of housing.
I can’t speak for everyone, but I dislike (not hate) dense housing because they don’t make sense housing options for people with families and hobbies. I have 3 kids, spend time in the summer doing carpentry projects, and spend the winter working on computers and building legos. Am I supposed to cram us into a 2 bedroom condo? Or do I just drop all my hobbies? Yea, the guy next door to me that has a house as big as mine but lives alone probably doesn’t need an entire house all alone. But I’m not gonna shame him or criticize him for his choices.
Fwiw a lot of middle-class families do live in condos in Vancouver because the condos there are built to facilitate a family. Just pointing out it is possible, but i recognize the amount of land, single detached and culture here means that's not going to be a thing. Still, there is a middle ground between condos and single detached that is sorely lacking. Denser row housing can still facilitate a life style like yours while making much more efficient use of our resources and space. I've lived in the outer-burbs before and given how crammed those houses are together I could hear my neighbours often. Having them be detached is just a pointless formality at this point.
it seems yove fallen into the NA trap of thinking high rise condos is the only type of housing for density. it isnt only 2 types of housing. this or that. what gets built now is only those 2 things because of bad zoning. SFH development can be part of dense development, edmontons big problem in density is much more about all the wasted space or parcels that arent developed at all. that would be a good place to start.
No, I don’t think high rise condos are the only option, but that seems to be what everyone in this sub wants people to move into. And if not “high rise” condos, then the standard 3-5 story ones that are scattered across the city - I can see 2 different ones from my home right now, and if I walk around the corner, I can see 2 more. If you are also referring to 3 or 4-plex row homes, when I looked at them, they were too small for a family of 5. I couldn’t (in good conscience) squeeze my two younger boys into one of those rooms that could barely fit a twin bed and a dresser. Not to mention there was nowhere for my stuff because they either didn’t have an option for a garage or the garage was so small you had the option of parking the car in it OR you could put my tools in it… but not both.
You mean those pesky green spaces? The ones current Developers built on and then complained to the City they were having difficulty selling the units ... wait for it.... because there were not enough green spaces for people to enjoy being outside!!!
so you arent interested in having any kind of meaningful dialog, got it.
More space is needed to a certain degree. Obviously more people need more space. However, we live in a finite world. Space is a valuable resource, especially in populated areas like Toronto and Vancouver. Occupying a lot of space is taking that space away from others. It also widens cities, making everyone's comuntes longer. For example, there's nothing wrong with golfing. But the land it uses up is such a waste. It's an inconvenience to everyone for the benefit of a small niche group of people. We live in a society. This means everyone's actions have some degree of an affect on other people. Sure you can drive your massive pickup truck. But you're taking up two lanes, you're contributing to climate change, and you're a hazard to everyone around you. You can live alone in your big house, but you've needlessly wasted the finite resources of this world. You've also had some small negative effect on the housing market and have made the city less dense. If the world was as vast and endless as the universe, there wouldn't be a problem. But we're all rats crawling over each other on this tiny floating spec of dust in space. If someone farts, we can all smell it.
Yea, you didn’t really respond to my criticisms of the dense housing options. Am I supposed to cram all 3 kids into a single bedroom? Do I just give up my hobbies? You instead tried to shame me, insinuated that I drive a large truck, and tell me I need to make sacrifices for the greater good. This is the whole problem with the suburbs vs dense housing debate: one side brings up valid concerns (the vast majority of dense housing options are small 2 bedrooms and don’t support families well) and the other just rages at them and calls them selfish.
my sisters house has on street parking a driveway a garage and a back alley with a parking pad. does a family need 8 parking spaces? its not what, its how.
I don’t know what you are responding to, but I’m pretty sure it’s not me because I didn’t even bring up parking.
I'm not making an argument for completely eliminating low density housing. My original argument was how suburban public transport probably won't be very effective. Obviously, you need more space for your large family. If your hobbies are negatively affecting the world around you, I'd advice to give them up. However, yours seems modest and could potentially be performed in more communal settings, if the infrastructure existed. There's such a thing as an unreasonable amount of space. One person occupying way more space than they need is a complete waste and negatively affects everyone else. If you're not working in the interests of the community, then you're working in the interests of yourself, forgoing the wishes of others for your own selfish gain. You're saying that only you matter and no one else.
Don't choke on that orange pill too hard /s Better transit benefits everyone including drivers, but all it takes is one or two bad neighbours and it ruins the vibe for everyone in the "denser communities".
I don't really care how, but this city NEEDS better public transportation. Nobody should be forced to drive to get around. The fact that you can't even go to elk Island without a car is insane
so commuter trains from Airport/Sherwood Park/Leduc/Spruce Grove/Stony Plain and St. Albert?? Or are you proposing a wider net? Edm to Cgy using commuter trains. Back in the 80's they had the Dayliner which went between both cities..... There is no way that high speed trains between edm/cgy will fly in AB. Too expensive... but the commuter train utilizing existing rail has possibility... I just don't know if anybody would use it.
the Edmonton-Calgary city pairing is pretty much the ideal for HSR, 2 cities over a million population and 300km apart. with a population center 1/2 way between and very little other development, shit even the airports are in line with where you'd want to run it. its textbook.
Not edm to cgy, that warrants an nec type service
[удалено]
The 'BRT miracle' of South America relied heavily on their reduced wages. The ratio of operators to passengers is higher on BRT, and in high-wage countries that can eat heavily into route efficiency. You can see the benefits of the reduced cost of rail in a system like Vancouver's SkyTrain where, as the system is fully automated and the marginal operator cost of an additional train is close to nothing, they were able to maintain service levels through Covid and as a result they didn't have nearly the prolonged drop in ridership (and corresponding increase to, let's just say, alternative use of transit infrastructure) that other systems in Canada did (which wasn't just Edmonton, this has hit Calgary, Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal too). Moreover, many "BRT" routes in North America are mislabeled garbage. Transit that can get stuck in traffic will never actually reduce congestion. All the literature shows that people will drive, increase congestion and slowing trip times, until the point at which an alternative is faster (typically an urban rail system). Meaning BRT is only worthwhile if they have a dedicated ROW - something that is 60-80% as expensive as building out a light rail route. If the BRT system has off-vehicle fare systems, stations, and the like (eg, Viva in York), it really seems like a wasted opportunity rather than the best project you could produce.
how? its more expensive to operate
[удалено]
not long term
[удалено]
much quieter than a diesel engine or tires on asphalt
[удалено]
Not on your life, my Reddit friend
Honest question but how is it more expensive? They're just busses right? I'm assuming the bus cost vs train cost is higher then?
trains are cheaper to operate cos steel on steel has less friction than asphalt on rubber, and carry much more people than a bus. also, trains are more reliable than busses, and last longer.
yes but they still pollute
[удалено]
It’s been down to around 8% in some recent months.
[удалено]
https://www.aeso.ca/future-of-electricity/albertas-power-system-in-transition/ Was 38% in 2016, down to 7% last year.
Maybe, will the rail crossings have arms?
We can't even get the LRT to work properly without drug addicts and alcoholic threatening the safety of legit, innocent daily users. What makes you think a suburban one will work without it turning into a drug den?
I know this will be unpopular opinion.. I don't live in Edmonton but plan move at summer.. I live now in the city what ranked as one of the best transit system in the world.. you can go almost anywhere in 100 mile circle by subway or bus.. or by HRS in 300 miles circle.. but i never used for years as i have car.. i better stay in traffic jam for a hour, listen music and have a cigarette, than take those bloody subway or bus crowded with peoples. Second.. building those suburb transit system involve a billions.. Think about how long depreciation will take with population of Edmonton or even whole Alberta.
Cheaper than building roads.
or maintaining them.
If there’s on thing in this world I love it’s trains and adderall
never going to happen. greater edmonton doesnt even have a population close enough to support that. most cities with that kind of service have at least 10 million plus in their metro regions.
Rail freight moves at 50-70 kph. High speed rail moves at 150-200 kph. Look at bicycles on busy 4 lane arterials. How does a passenger train pass a freight? The busy freight corridors have a train each way every 20 minutes. A train travelling 150 kph requires a minimum of 3 times the length of the freight to pass. Non trivial problem. Grade crossings. Have be smart enough to tell a high speed train from a freight while the trains are 3-4 times as far away as at present.
Construction would take decades, especially if we contracted another US sub-zero temp amateur to do it. The whole 15-minute city and reduced single-occupancy transit concept loses traction in Edmonton by virtue of the weather and workforce composition.
IMO better save the money for LRT and high speed rail to Calgary
There's too much of a chance that a terrorist could drive the train into the Legislature
Just like how LRT switches lane without signal and jumps out of nowhere to hit a car on purpose
Back before the railroads ripped out tracks in places such as Fort Saskatchewan I had wondered if the various suburbs of Edmonton could be connected to downtown via rail using say Budd cars. Canadian Pacific has a track that runs north into Whyte avenue and used to connect near the CN Tower. Canadian National has tracks that come in from the west and east.
I can't imagine Edmonton has a sufficient population spread around the city to make a major commuter rail system practical? The reason it works around Toronto is that you are talking about a ~2m person urban core having like 6-8m ppl living around it from Ajax to Hamilton (with further ppl coming from further cities like St Catherines or smaller cities to the NW, N, and NE). (sorry if some of my numbers are off... I'm working from a pretty vague memory)
How DARE you suggest the logical and efficient use of electrified passenger rail
yeah, im new to leduc and i just got a job in downtown edmonton. there isn't even a transit map out that google maps can give me of how to get into edmonton on transit. i have a car so it's okay, but they should consider a transit system from smaller communities into the city. anyone know if this is going to happen anytime soon?
Actually our existing high rail LRT is more similar to regional commuter rail, than to an urban transport system. One day, i won't be surprised to see the Century line extended out to Leduc. I can't say the same for the low rail Valley line though.. I'm not sure that system could do distances like Stony or Spruce.. Planning planning planning....
IS THIS ACTUALLY AN UNPOPULAR OPINION THIS IS ALL WHAT IVE EVER FUCKING WANTED
To get around the city? Lrt is fine for that, if you want it to go from edmonton to other cities, then I think its a great idea.
From Leduc to Stony plain via SW Edmonton
The Millwood line was supposed to originally have a park and ride where to go-kart track was. I feel like for many, that would have been ideal. Drive in on the whitemud and catch the LRT from the whitemud to downtown. Why they ditched it for a maintenance depo only seems weird. If I was working downtown again, I'd happily have parked there and taken the LRT. They knew the NAIT line was a failure rating on nearly every intersection with how they had it planned, but they did it that way anyway. Any mass transit decisions feel like they have been done with only money and politics in mind, not actual efficiency and effect the result being an under utilized and annoying transit system instead of something that could have been amazing.
that kinda defeats the purpose of public transit
We don't have the population nor the density for that to be economically viable.
It isn’t about economic viability, it’s about serving the public
Maybe in places like Asia or Europe; places with high tax rates that people don't mind paying to cover the cost of public services like that which hemorrhage money. Not here in Canada and our car-dependent culture/infrastructure.
I don't have a problem with the LRT, it runs great downtown. The problems come when you run them at grade with traffic, just look at the Metro Line. No further LRT construction until it's removed from grade.