Speaking Municipally

Mack:
Three feet repeat. This week, council voted to reduce the maximum height in the RS zone. Squint and you'll see the difference.

Stephanie:
Plus, we found out how much more the Lewis Farms Rec Center is going to cost, and one councillor's wondering if we should give up on LRT in the northwest.

Mack:
Hi, I'm Mack.

Stephanie:
I'm Stephanie.

Mack:
And we're…

Stephanie:
Speaking.

Mack:
Municipally. Welcome back to Speaking Municipally, episode 354. We both got Oilers gear on…

Stephanie:
Hey.

Mack:
But hasn't been the first round series we were kind of hoping for.

Stephanie:
And actually, I'm not even gonna say what I was gonna say about what could Everyone knows that we record on Thursdays, everyone knows what's happening on Thursday night, so everyone knows what I was about to say about what could happen by the time this episode comes out, and that's where I'm gonna leave it.

Mack:
Yes. We will…

Stephanie:
Yeah.

Mack:
Not focus on Oilers for this episode But by the time you are listening, that might be all the news is about. We'll see. Stephanie, you've got such a colorful, interesting…

Stephanie:
Thank you.

Mack:
Varied background compared to me.

Stephanie:
Thank you.

Mack:
Mine's just like this really boring curtain or whatever, but I understand you got something new.

Stephanie:
I did. Okay, so there was the ETS Transit Awards this weekend as we were told about. We were told this by Emily Strommel, who is the chair of the Edmonton Transit Riders, and she joined us on Taproot Exchange last week, and she told us all about the Transit Awards, and so I attended. And I won something, and here's the thing, is that, there were allegations of buying the media, and it was a completely random thing. I chose my seat Actually, my colleague, Colin Gallant, saved the seat for me, had no idea about this, and they said, "Okay, everyone, look under your seats, and if you have a sticker, then you won," and I won that. So, if anyone thinks that I'm being bought and purchased by the Edmonton Transit Riders, you're wrong, but this is what I won.

Mack:
Oh, you won a bus stop sign. Awesome, 6444. Love it.

Stephanie:
I'm so excited. I've wanted one of these for so long. I've been so jealous of all the people that have them, and I think I'm gonna put it, like, actually, like, right here.

Mack:
Right there?

Stephanie:
That kinda looks good.

Mack:
Yeah. It does, yeah.

Stephanie:
Right over the cat bed.

Mack:
Yeah.

Stephanie:
Or, like, I think having it oh, you can't really see, but, like, having it sideways out from the door might also be fun. I'm so excited. It really made my day, and just was so glad to win, and it was a really fun event too. It was very wholesome. I ate a cupcake with the number five on it…

Mack:
Awesome.

Stephanie:
Like, the number five bus, and it was great.

Mack:
The route 5.

Stephanie:
Yeah.

Mack:
That's great. Well, congratulations on your win. Those bus stop signs, you can, you can win them kind of regularly throughout the summer, right? The ETS team is at different festivals and things like that.

Stephanie:
Yeah…

Mack:
So…

Stephanie:
I think so, and also, like, again, going back to if it's like a I was, if I'm being bought, like, the thing is that these are it's actually garbage, like, it's literally garbage. So, it's I'm not really being purchased, you know?

Mack:
It's a, it's a treasure to you though. I can see…

Stephanie:
It…

Mack:
How happy you are about it.

Stephanie:
I'm so happy, and all of my friends that I've shown it to have been like, "That is so you," and I'm like, "I know." So, yeah.

Mack:
All right, well, we have a little bit of transit to talk about this episode, so stay tuned for that. But first, we're gonna kick off with an ad.

Stephanie:
This episode is brought to you by U of A Reads from the University of Alberta. It's a podcast that starts where most stories don't, before the first word is even written. You'll hear from alumni authors about the real stuff behind their books, like what it means to write through illness and recovery, or how lived experience shapes conversations around Indigenous identity and resistance. Some episodes explore poetry and the quiet realities of distance and loss. Others unpack history, imagination, and the stories we carry forward. It's a reminder that every story comes from somewhere real. Listen to U of A Reads wherever you get your podcasts.

Mack:
Thank you, Stephanie. Our first item this week is about housing and rezoning and infill, and, you know, you might read the headlines across Alberta right now and know that they're making big changes down in Red Deer, which is maybe affecting how much funding they're gonna get through the Housing Accelerator. Calgary has repealed their blanket rezoning, or is in the process of doing so. You might think, "We must be making big moves in Edmonton too," but not quite so big. What happened this week, Stephanie?

Stephanie:
Yeah, so this was a continuation. A few weeks ago, we were talking about this, and, it got delayed because they didn't have time to, debate the changes after hearing from all the speakers, but at the end of the day, council voted 10 to 3 to reduce the max height of new developments in the small scale zone, also known as the RS zone, from 10.5 to 9.5. It's one meter height reduction, and…

Mack:
About three feet, which is…

Stephanie:
Yeah.

Mack:
The title for those…

Stephanie:
Yeah, exactly.

Mack:
Of you who don't aren't Americans, you know?

Stephanie:
Yeah. So, those who voted in favor of reducing the height are, Mayor Andrew Knack, Councillors Reed Clarke, Mike Elliott, Michael Janz, Aaron Paquette, Thu Parmar, Karen Principe, Erin Rutherford, Ashley Salvador, and Anne Stevenson. And then against were Councillors Jon Morgan, Karen Tang, and Joanne Wright.

Mack:
Okay, so it doesn't sound like a big change, a meter in height, and I think when you talked about this on the show before, you said it's really not materially gonna make much of an impact. So, what was the tenor of the discussion, and then why did these three of them, at least, decide to vote against it?

Stephanie:
Well, you know, I heard the word reluctantly a lot. A lot of councillors said that they were weighing, on one hand, trying to appease neighbors who are opposed to infill. You heard the phrase, bringing people along, a lot. And, but on the other side, of course, they don't want to reduce housing development. One councillor Erin Rutherford, said in her closing remarks that she went back and read all of the GBA+ analysis way back from the original public engagement on the zoning by-law renewal. GBA+ is when they speak to, you know, marginalized people, vulnerable people, racialized women, you know, people that-… can, k-kinda fall through the cracks sometimes. And these folks said that they wanted denser housing, increased supply, all of those things that the zoning by-law renewal was promised to bring.

Erin Rutherford:
These decisions do affect those groups disproportionately. (sighs) But, I always talk about it's the same with bike lanes, it's the same with other things. You know, sometimes concessions are needed to bring people along. So, for that reason, I'm reluctantly gonna support this, for today. But we need to stop. We need to stop, and just let the zoning by-law live out its life for a while. Like one of our speakers said, "Give it five to 10 years." Continually re-tweaking and refining it to this extent, you know, every six months, is not You know, we've literally changed the rules every construction cycle so far, since the new zoning by-law has been in place. It creates uncertainty in our, in our consistency as from an economic development perspective, which we've all said is really important. But it continually doesn't allow us to actually see the lagging indicators of success or failure. And so please, can we not do a subsequent? Can we please just let this ride, with the decision today? That's my ask. Thank you.

Mack:
That's really interesting. They I mean, drinking game, we got "reluctantly", we got "bringing people along". We got all the buzzwords there.

Stephanie:
Yeah.

Mack:
But, I think what she's saying makes a ton of sense, right? And this has been some of the criticism of all of these changes, I think, you know, especially this one, where the majority of the infills in the RS zone are under 9.5 meters anyway. So, this isn't really gonna do anything, except, you know, further confuse people about what are the rules today and potentially, you know, delay or impact the kinda infill projects that we all wanna see happen in the city. So, did people heed her warning? Were there a bunch of subsequents?

Stephanie:
Can you guess? No, there was one…

Mack:
Oh, probably.

Stephanie:
There was one that I saw. Maybe we'll get to that later, because there were other, like, zoning, wider zoning changes that were discussed.

Mack:
Okay, tell us about those other changes.

Stephanie:
So, the next one had to do with the small to medium scale transition zone, AKA, the RSM zone, which, to put it simply, it allows up to four stories. In this discussion, there was no change to what can be built, so there's no reduction to height or anything. Instead, admin wanted to change where that zone would be supported. So, if we back up a little bit, little bit of background. For every rezoning application, administration goes through a list of criteria and decides if the proposed new zone is an appropriate land use for that particular location. And then they give a recommendation of support or non-support. This is not binding. Council goes against the recommendations all the time.

Mack:
Right.

Stephanie:
The list of criteria comes from the district policy, which is, in part, meant to guide whether or not administration supports rezoning. The zoning by-law is a bit more specific. It lays out what can actually be built and where. So, there's those two pieces of policy or legislation. And so…

Mack:
And they're supposed to work in tandem, right? They're supposed to…

Stephanie:
Exactly.

Mack:
Work together and support one another, not be in conflict, hopefully.

Stephanie:
Yeah. I was trying to think of an analogy, like, the zoning by-law is kind of like the construction drawings, the blueprint, whereas the district policy is like someone sitting back and going, "I'd really like to have a house with two levels and four rooms." Like, if that kinda makes sense. Like, district policy is like kind of guiding where the zoning goes, where the zoning by-law is like, "Okay, on this lot, you can build a two-story house." If that makes sense.

Mack:
Yep.

Stephanie:
Okay. So, administration had proposed changing the district policy to allow for a more nuanced review of those criteria, the factors that affect a site. And they also propose changing the zoning by-law to limit the use of RSM zone to sites within node and corridor areas. So, that's essentially on, like, larger streets, on large undeveloped sites, or where it's supported in other planning documents. It's a bit confusing, I know. It's a bit like, "Go ask your dad. Go ask your mom. Go ask your dad. Go ask your mom." But essentially…

Mack:
It does feel like that, yes.

Stephanie:
Yeah. Essentially, admin wanted to Like, with these changes, what the plan was to limit four story infill development to larger roads on the outskirts of neighborhoods. And really, we would only support, those larger four story builds in the center of neighborhoods if it was like a really great lot, like a consolidation of several lots, or if, like, it was right beside a school, maybe. Like, it's in, only in special circumstances.

Mack:
And can you give us a sense of where this came from? Like, did administration feel like this change is required to bring people along? Or are there a ton of people asking for this change? Like, why are they, why were they even talking about this?

Stephanie:
Well, it was a couple of reasons. A, administration, in the report, said that the RS zone already provides enough density, like, enough permission for density, and that developers were using the RSM zone to get, like, one more unit. And they thought that these RSM rezonings were superfluous, or, unnecessary. And then, of course, yeah, there's also the element of bringing people along because, you know, four stories is bigger than, bigger than three.

Mack:
Yeah.

Stephanie:
Oh, and also another important thing that I should mention is that the site coverage is different. For RS, it's 45%. So, on the lot, 45% can be covered by buildings.

Mack:
Yeah.

Stephanie:
But on RSM, it's 60.

Mack:
Ah.

Stephanie:
So, it's quite a bit more, it's more than half of the lot.

Mack:
It's quite large. Yeah.

Stephanie:
And that's where you get, like, those big, the Crestwood situation, where you've got those, like, long walls that do block quite a bit of sunlight from neighboring, into neighboring backyards. So, that's an important thing. But the main thing is that they posit that RS is good enough.

Mack:
Okay. So, how did council-… treat these changes? Did they approve them?

Stephanie:
So, they ended up, originally, the administration wanted them to vote just for both of those at the same time, but they ended up splitting the bylaws for voting purposes. For the district policy, so that's, you know, that list of criteria that kind of hones in, makes it a stronger list of criteria, that passed. The changes to the zoning bylaw did not. So, many of the councillors said, "Yes, we want more nuance in deciding whether we support these rezoning applications. However, RSM still has a place outside of nodes and corridors on those larger sites." One example they gave, which is pretty common in these central neighborhoods, is, you might have a three-story walk-up from, like, the '60s, one single-family house, and another three-story walk-up from the 1960s.

Mack:
Right.

Stephanie:
Even though that one in the middle, it's just one single-family house, it's just one lot, if that little lot was in any other location in the neighborhood, you would say, "Of course that shouldn't be a four-story building." But because it's already beside two other large three-story buildings, yeah, it's like, "Of course." So that's, that was kind of, like, and it should be easier to do the RSM zone in, certain locations. That's what most of the councillors were saying.

Mack:
And so by approving the changes to the district policy, but not to the zoning bylaw itself, I think in effect what this means is council retains their discretion to approve these things, and they can cite the updated district policies to support their decisions a little bit. Does that, does that make sense?

Stephanie:
I think so, yeah. It got a little confusing. And also, I think an important thing to remember is that it doesn't matter where your site is. You can bring it forward for a rezoning to literally anything you want. That is your legal right.

Mack:
Right.

Stephanie:
And if council decides that it's right for that, if the land use is correct for that location, they can approve it. It doesn't matter what administration thinks. Administration uses their expertise to give recommendations, but it does not matter. Like, so admin saying that, like, RSM will never be used for infill again is silly, because of, it, that's not their decision. But yeah, I think you're right, in that the nuance checklist gives them a little bit more things to cite.

Mack:
A little bit more justification, perhaps.

Stephanie:
Yeah.

Mack:
Okay. So all of these changes together then, the decrease in height on the RS zone, the change to the district policy related to the RSM zone, feels a lot like what Coun. Rutherford was saying, like, "We gotta stop tweaking around the edges. It's not materially gonna change much." It feels like these changes together, we're not gonna see big changes as a result. Is that fair to say?

Stephanie:
Yeah. Yeah, especially with the changes to the district policy, because like I said, council's gonna approve things, like, if they think that they're fit. Mayor Andrew Knack mentioned that the changes to the district policy kind of formalize what council's already been doing in recent months, which is voting down those RSM rezonings that don't fit into the neighborhood.

Mack:
Right.

Stephanie:
They've already been using kind of a different set of checklist in their mind, and now that, now that checklist is gonna kinda be in the district policy.

Mack:
That makes sense. Okay.

Stephanie:
Yeah.

Mack:
You mentioned earlier subsequents…

Stephanie:
Yes.

Mack:
So let's get to that.

Stephanie:
All right, so Coun. Michael Janz made a notice of motion, which means that he'll be making the actual motion at the next council meeting, and that we'll actually hear some more debate and we'll get to hear more information about what this actually means. But yeah, so Janz made this notice of motion asking for administration to provide a report to committee with recommended options that enable a review and feedback of building design of residential infill development through the development permit process. So, what I think that means is that they want options to make infills look better through the development permit process.

Mack:
That sounds dangerously close to just more tweaking around the edges.

Stephanie:
Yeah, because they've already made changes to the façade design and everything of certain zones. And also, I'm also wondering if this gets into the Edmonton Design Committee's mandate. Like I said, we'll learn more when it gets brought up at the next council meeting.

Mack:
And then of course, it's just asking for a report.

Stephanie:
Yeah.

Mack:
So, it may not go anywhere. It may just be some information that council gets pulled together. Okay. Well, there's one thing you can't accuse this new council of doing, and that is ignoring infill, because I feel like we've talked about this a bunch of times, and this constant tweaking is certainly responsive to what became a major point of discussion during the election last year. But I kind of share, Coun. Rutherford's, concerns here, and I hope that we can tone it down a little bit and just let the thing go. Like, let's have a couple of construction seasons and see what happens. Let's collect the data and, you know, save any further modifications or tweaks for the point where it actually makes sense, right, where we know what the impact is gonna be. All right, second item this week we're gonna talk about is the Lewis Farms Recreation Center. We mentioned this, I think, in a, in a recent episode. This is councillor, when he was a councillor, Mayor Andrew Knack's, like, big push, right, to try to get this thing built. And now that he's mayor, I'm sure he'd love to have the thing open under his watch and, you know, be a big success and do the ribbon-cutting. But it seems like it's gonna be a struggle to get to the finish line.

Stephanie:
Yeah. Well, we mentioned a few weeks ago that there was a budget increase, and they voted on it in private because, to kind of protect their bargaining power in these contracts. But anyways, they were saying, "Okay, it's gonna be revealed in a borrowing bylaw in the next few weeks." Now we have that. It was voted on this week, and we learned that the center's budget increase will be $33.8 million, bringing it to a total of 30- $343 million.

Mack:
So, about 10%, of the budget then increased. Did we get any more information about what's behind that increase or how administration, like, arrived at that number?

Stephanie:
So, at this meeting, there was minimal, if any, questions or presentations about this. We heard all of it back at the meeting a few weeks ago. They just did the vote, and it was 11 to 2, Councillors Karen Principe and Mike Elliott voted against it, even though Karen Principe voted in favor of the increase back in March.

Mack:
And I see in the reporting from CBC that even though he voted for it, Coun. Janz didn't sound super thrilled about it, actually. There's a little bit of a trend, like, you know, he, we, with the last time we talked about too, it was 10-3, but it really wasn't a 10-3 if you kind of parse people's, you know, that reluctance, to make those votes. On this one, Coun. Janz said that, quote, "I wish we had hit stop and had a chance to sit down and try to bring other people into the mix." Not really sure exactly what he was hoping to have happen in a, you know, what would be different. I'm not, I'm not 100% sure, but…

Stephanie:
Yeah.

Mack:
I know the reaction, which is pretty natural, is that's a lot of money and we gotta do something to avoid these constant price increases. I think the original budget for the Lewis Farms Recreation Center was $311 million, so, you know, it's gone up quite significantly.

Stephanie:
Mm-hmm. I do wonder, though, since the last, like, budget update that we got, they approved 311 in 2021, like, and how much has inflation gone up since then, right? Like, is it about equal, I don't know, 10% over five years?

Mack:
I mean, inflation is certainly a factor and, just there's lots of other cost pressures on construction and, materials and things like that beyond just inflation too. So, I mean, it's not surprising that the budget goes up. That's what happens with any of these projects that they're working on. The longer it takes to build, the more expensive it tends to become. You told us about this previously, but just quickly, we're not getting the project that was approved originally. We're not getting what was in that $311 million, even though we've now approved the borrowing bylaw for another $33 million or so. What does the reduction in scope look like again?

Stephanie:
Yeah. Basically, the overall size of the facility was reduced by about one third. And then within the facility, there's been a 20% reduction to the aquatic facility, a 32% reduction in fitness space, and the removal of the dry land training space. Several components have been deferred, so administration is going to, like, leave a space for them, but won't build them quite yet, including a skate park, a spray park, and ice rink outside of the facility. And even with all those reductions, the project, at the time, was going to, for, exceed the budget at the time. Now it's been increased, so hopefully they don't have to increase it anymore. And this quote I just thought was so interesting, "Although significant cost reductions have been achieved during the initial stages of construction, the project is now currently at a pivotal stage where there are diminishing returns to continuing value engineering efforts as the project continues to chase inflationary pressures."

Mack:
Well, this project started a long time ago. What was it? 2005? A long time ago. And construction started in 2023, and if all goes well now with the approval of this increased budget, if things stay on track, it's supposed to open in 2028. So we'll still get that ribbon cutting for the mayor before the end of this first term if, as long as the schedule doesn't get too far behind, which is the other thing that we haven't heard much about on this project yet. There's…

Stephanie:
Yeah.

Mack:
You know, concerns about budget and concerns about schedule, and so far we've just been dealing with concerns about budget. It would not surprise me at some point in the future here if we also have this back in the news for scheduling reasons. All right, before we get to our next item, we've got another ad for you. This episode is brought to you by Housing Forward, the first prairie-wide affordable housing summit. Hosted by the City of Edmonton, Housing Forward brings together more than 500 leaders from across Western Canada to advance practical, scalable solutions for housing delivery. This is not just a place for talk. Every session will deliver applied tools, real world models, and collaborative frameworks that participants can take home and put to work. The summit takes place May 11th to 14th at the Edmonton Convention Center. You can register today and learn more at housingforward.ca. That's housingforward.ca. All right, off the top, I promised you a little bit of transit news in this episode, and there were a bunch of motions or notice of motions given in this council meeting this week, and she's been in the news a lot lately. Coun. Rutherford was the source of one of those, and it was about the Metro Line LRT, the north extension beyond what we currently have in Blatchford. So bring us up to speed, Stephanie. What is the councillor looking for?

Stephanie:
Well, the LRT will not be brought up to speed through the northwest, or apparently that's what Coun. Erin Rutherford says. I love this story, honestly. She's so pragmatic and I really admire her for what she said in this story. Basically, she had tabled a motion this week that asks city administration to prepare a memo for other transit options in the area because she calls the Metro Line LRT northwest expansion a "pipe dream." she said to CBC News, quote, "I'd rather have those conversations sooner and look at contingency plans and other ways to make sure that the residents who I represent are served by mass transit in the near future, rather than waiting on a pipe dream."

Mack:
Pipe dream is a pretty bold statement about this. So just for, as a quick reminder, this Metro Line Northwest Extension would mostly go through, Coun. Rutherford's ward, and it would go from Blatchford, where we currently have the end of the line, through to the edge of St. Albert. And it could, in theory, in the future, align with an LRT line that would be built in St. Albert, although that's obviously not our jurisdiction and the City of Edmonton wouldn't be responsible for that. There's three phases to this project. The first was getting from, NAIT to Blatchford, and that is now done. The second phase is to get from Blatchford to Castle Downs, and what council approved in the current budget cycle, the one that's ending this year, was I think $20 million for land acquisition, so to acquire land along the route in order to start preparing for the construction of that. And then phase three would go from Castle Downs to Campbell Road, which is this station at the edge of Edmonton and St. Albert, and there was no approvals for any part of that. So, the big-… cost consideration. The thing that Coun. Rutherford is mostly worried about is in this phase two piece, which is the CN Walker Rail Yards. This is a really massive train yard full of lines. Very busy, among the busiest in Canada. And it's, the LRT's gotta either go under it or over it. The design guide for this extension has a beautiful conceptual bridge that goes over it. It looks to me a little bit like if you took Walterdale or you know, one of those kind of suspension bridges and then kinda had two of them, to go over the yard. Now, that's just conceptual. Maybe it'd be cheaper to go under. In this case, Coun. Rutherford thinks it's not gonna be cheaper to go under or over. She suggested actually that the bridge over the Walker Rail Yards could be as much as the rest, could cost as much as the rest of the line combined. Which is quite shocking, if that's true.

Stephanie:
Yeah, I, it, those crossings are very complicated because they involve these, it's not like you can just shut down the CN yard for a couple of months while you build the bridge. Like…

Mack:
Right.

Stephanie:
There's, it's actively being used every single day. I think that rail traffic can be a little bit territorial maybe, because we all know about all the issues going on with the 76 Ave, if we go all the way south of the river to, like, 76th Ave, how it does not cross through the rail there. And I've heard that it's because a certain rail company does not want to give up their land. They don't wanna put anything there.

Mack:
You mentioned you had admiration for the councillor on this. I think it's interesting that she, like, this doesn't seem to be based on a report that said it's gonna cost this much. Like, we don't actually have any new information. But it does seem like her consideration here is for the people she serves, for the constituents of the northwest, and kind of reading between the lines and seeing that we're not likely to get this anytime soon. We're heading into a four-year capital budget that is gonna be pretty constrained in terms of new funding. It's very unlikely we're gonna be able to move this project forward significantly in the next four-year cycle. Unless, you know, the federal government magically comes to the table with a big pot of money. In which case, yeah, we'll go and we'll build it. So, what she's talking about is, can we do something to serve those people? Can we find BRT or something like that would be a way to serve people in the northwest without just this waiting game that constantly happens? We've been telling them, "We're gonna build LRT" since we started the conceptual planning for this back in 2005, maybe even earlier than that. Doesn't seem like it's gonna happen anytime soon. So, I think that's interesting and kind of admirable. What else did you think about this issue that she brought forward?

Stephanie:
I think, well, this kinda goes into something that, again, Emily Strumel, mentioning her again, she spoke to CBC too and said that BRT's just faster and cheaper to build and she notices that people like trains. They think it's cooler and sexier than buses. Which is very true.

Mack:
Absolutely.

Stephanie:
But the thing is I love, like, the more, adaptable and, like, almost, like, gritty nature of buses. Like, buses are awesome. Trains are lame 'cause they only run on, like, one thing, but buses are, like, adaptable. You can move them around. You can, like, increase frequency, I think, way easier. I don't know, and like, just her, she, just how realistic she's being. She's like, "Yeah, this isn't happening, but let's try something better. Let's try something, like, sooner, cheaper, and potentially much better."

Mack:
I think there's a real need for this, right? I mean, we've mostly built transit in the south, to the southeast and to the southwest, which makes sense. There's been an awful lot of growth in the south, but I don't know. If you drive around the Henday up north, there is a ton of housing up there too. There's growth all over the city, right? And, you know, Griesbach, for example, where this LRT line would go through, just hugely explosive growth, right? And serving those folks, I think, is really important. So, if we can find a way to do that in a shorter timeframe, then I do think that's worth exploring. I'm a bit reluctant, about this, though, from the point of view that if we just start looking at BRT everywhere, are we effectively saying the LRT network plan is dead? Like, are we actually at some point gonna go and then build an LRT line or are we just gonna stick with BRT? And I think the other question about BRT, Emily talked about this on our Taproot Exchange discussion is, now, there's different kinds of BRT. Like, are we building the infrastructure so that buses have a dedicated lane and they really can achieve the efficiencies that, you know, BRT can provide? Or are we just doing kind of express buses, but on existing infrastructure? And that was the one other thought I had about this. Which is, we've spent billions of dollars on the Yellowhead expansion, or conversion, the freeway conversion. Maybe this is an argument to make use of that infrastructure investment. We've spent all this money to get rid of all the lights and make it a freeway. If part of the BRT route to get from Blatchford to the northwest utilizes some of this new freeway, that might be an interesting argument to make. Let's make use of that infrastructure that we've already invested in. I don't know if that's where this is envisioned to go and I guess we'll find out more, you know, if this, if this goes forward.

Stephanie:
Yeah, I mean, that's part of the Terwillegar Drive project that went on is that it has, bus lanes along the whole, the whole way, which is, I mean, if you're gonna be expanding it, you might as well make some room for buses.

Mack:
One challenge about not having a bridge over the rail yards is that the conceptual design did include a shared use path. And so, cyclists and pedestrians and other people would finally have a way to get across there more easily than they can today. If we go the BRT route, which I'm assuming, based on the councillor's comments, would mean no bridge, then that seems unlikely. And so, there is still a bit of a disconnect, over that area of the city.

Stephanie:
Yeah, I also wanna go back a little bit to talking about kind of the future of LRT, 'cause I do wonder if, like, I wonder if we'll ever get to a point where the it's super easy to build LRT. Like, I don't think we will. It always depends on getting funding from other levels of government. It always depends on, like, really ardent supporters, both at all levels of government. I mean, the Valley Line was funded a lot by the carbon tax, like, return, right? We don't have that anymore. So, I wonder if, like, yeah, maybe this is, like, a way more, like, philosophical question, but is LRT the right thing to be building?

Mack:
I think it's a fair question to ask, given the how much time has passed since the, you know, the LRT network plan was first put out there. Like, I remember when he was a councillor, Don Iveson, you know, using that map to show, like, what could be. This was part of the vision for where Edmonton could go. And people love the idea that we have all these transit lines. I mean, we don't think we have a very developed LRT network, but compared to so many cities around North America and the world, we actually do. And if we could build more of it, you know, it could have a real, a real impact. But LRT is not the solution to all our problems. LRT can be a very effective way to move large numbers of people across the city. It's not necessarily the fastest, most efficient form of transit, and it's clearly not the most affordable, right? I just, I just wish that the discussion we were having was not driven by, "It's gonna be too expensive. It seems unlikely that we'll ever get there," and was a bit more strategic. We look around what's happening in other cities in North America, admittedly warmer climates, self-driving cars, taxi services, self-driving buses even for some municipalities. These things are real and happening. If development continues on those things, does that become part of our transit system in the future? But we're not planning from this point of view of what is coming, what is possible, what is likely to happen when we can align the funding. We are instead reacting to the dollar signs continue to go up, "What can we do that's cheaper?" Right? I would love to see a bit of a more strategic look at what is likely to make up our transit system 10, 15, 25 years from now, rather than just saying, "LRT's too expensive. We gotta do something else," you know? All right. Well, what's next on this? This motion passed, but what can we expect?

Stephanie:
Well, it was asking for a memo, so it'll be sent out to Council whenever it's ready, and then a little bit after that it'll be posted online. And I will find it, and I will bring back more information about it.

Mack:
Probably not gonna be much of a budget topic. Although, I suppose, they could decide to fund some sort of study as part of the four-year budget. So, we'll see where that goes.

Stephanie:
Yeah. I mean, they put in an unfunded service package for other BRT mass transit things, so maybe they'll also put this one and up to the northwest. Who knows?

Mack:
Right. All right. Last item this week is your favorite topic To pay attention to, one of them. You have lots of favorites, but…

Stephanie:
I do.

Mack:
The Army and Navy building on Whyte Avenue.

Stephanie:
Yes. So, I told you a couple weeks ago that something is happening. There was a rezoning sign up, this week at Council. They approved it without debate. They just gave it the rubber stamp because, like, there's nothing really changing in the zone anyways. But I just, there's an update, so I wanted to talk about it. They're, they've rezoned it to, allow public access to the rooftop potentially, add additional signage, and have more flexible reuse of the building. Again, like, not that much of a change. It's not like they're, like, rezoning to put a 30-story tower there. But, like, the thing that Yeah. So, this is just Now, it's possible that construction could start because they have their little rezoning done. We'll be checking to see if they get their development permit. And they've got the plywood covering the windows, and it's clear that something could potentially start happening soon. I, notice how I'm talking in like I'm in such a, you know I'm so scared to say anything. I don't even I don't wanna jinx it, like a certain other thing that I don't wanna jinx. I'm just really curious though to see what is going to happen with the sidewalk in front, because the plywood is out like a foot or two or three from the building. And, there's now probably enough space for two people to walk side by side out there. And I'm hoping that construction doesn't fully close the sidewalk for the summer.

Mack:
Yeah. This is a problem in Edmonton. We don't, we don't…

Stephanie:
I knew you were gonna say that.

Mack:
Maintain sidewalks, right? Like, put some scaffolding, put the hoarding over top, maintain the sidewalk access. Like, it doesn't happen very often. I have been relatively happy with how, they've been doing this. Marigold has been doing this with the Valley Line West LRT extension around my house 'cause they've been digging up the concrete every hour of the day for the last number Of weeks. But they have maintained pedestrian and cycling access. And they keep moving it, which is a bit of a challenge, but they maintain it, which I really appreciate. So, you can cut through still as a, as a pedestrian. But lots of construction projects, as we know, they don't do that. They close the sidewalk completely, or they'll make you go on, you know, some crazy detour that actually adds quite a bit to your travel time as a pedestrian. So, I too hope that they can do something better with the construction that happens there. I also feel, Stephanie, like I it's my responsibility to say, "Check your expectations. Construct plywood doesn't mean things are imminent."

Stephanie:
Yeah, I know.

Mack:
There are all kinds of construction projects that look like they're about to begin and years go by.

Stephanie:
True.

Mack:
I hope that's not the case here. But…

Stephanie:
I hope so too.

Mack:
You never know.

Stephanie:
There was some choice, there was some choice graffiti scrawled on it already saying certain things about certain politicians in the world. So, who knows? Who knows how long it's gonna be up there? Another thing, though, is that this Let's say that construction starts this summer and also that construction on the scramble removal transit priority measure project that's happening. So, if there's, like, all this construction happening right in the very core, the very heart of Whyte Avenue, it's just gonna be so, such a pain to get around through the summer. And then, like, that will actually hurt businesses, you know?

Mack:
We could just close the road to traffic.

Stephanie:
Why would you say something so controversial yet so brave?

Mack:
Right? Right? And then people could walk freely. We could have the Art Walk every day, you know? All right.

Stephanie:
Yes.

Mack:
Well, you'll keep us posted, I'm sure, on what happens…

Stephanie:
I sure will.

Mack:
With the Army and Navy building. Okay. Well, we've got our episode done. There's only one thing left to do today, aside from our close, which we'll get to right away, and that is watch the Oilers game. So, fingers crossed, Stephanie.

Stephanie:
Fingers and toes and everything crossed.

Mack:
Yeah. It's rough. It's hard to be an Edmonton Oilers fan, isn't it?

Stephanie:
Mm-hmm. I was watching…

Mack:
We gotta, we gotta wait till our back is right up against the wall.

Stephanie:
Mm-hmm. I was watching, though, the bit of the series between Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. That looked like such a fun series. And, like, the Battle of Pennsylvania. It looked like either side, it would have been so fun to be involved in those games. But, anyways.

Mack:
Totally. I mean, the Montreal series with Tampa Bay has also been really crazy. 3-2 now.

Stephanie:
Oh, and…

Mack:
Like, such exciting games.

Stephanie:
And the Buffalo Sabres when they all sang "O Canada," if you guys saw that. I did shed a little bit of a tear, I'm not gonna lie.

Mack:
We should put a link in the show notes for that. It was a really cool video. Absolutely. Okay. Well, hopefully there's more hockey in Edmonton in the future. Either way, we'll be back next week with more news about what's happening in City Council and around the city. Until then, I'm Mack.

Stephanie:
I'm Stephanie.

Mack:
And we're…

Stephanie:
Speaking…

Mack:
Municipally.