Edmonton Public Transit

[CMD UW]

Speaking of transit and route planning, there is some very cool stuff happening behind the scenes.

...more to come...

[CanadianCentaur]

Originally Posted by CMD UW

Speaking of transit and route planning, there is some very cool stuff happening behind the scenes.

...more to come...

Would you be able to elaborate, or at least give us hints about this? If not, when you expect this to be released?

[leendert]

Originally Posted by CMD UW

Speaking of transit and route planning, there is some very cool stuff happening behind the scenes.

...more to come...

Detailed WLRT route planning???

[feepa]

**touches nose**

The Journal asked Bob Boutilier to share his views on Edmonton's transit future.


Sheila Pratt, The Edmonton Journal

Published: 6:03 am
Here is an edited transcript of his conversation with reporter Sheila Pratt.
- You're a man in a hurry. Why the sudden rush to expand the LRT system across the city and into the region?
Three things. If we don't start getting rights-of-way in place, we're going to run into barriers. I don't want to find ourselves two years from no- tearing down people's houses.

Also, we've got to get out of town as quickly as possible and get to the green fields. That's where we can identify the transit line and station locations ahead of time. We can get the developers to build their skyscrapers there and not in the middle of some residential area or older neighbourhood.
Thirdly, this is a transit-friendly city council. If we don't get started in this cycle, people will be asking ten years from no- why didn't you build the line?
- Edmonton is such a low-density city, does expanding LRT network make economic sense?
Yes, it's a very low-density city, especially compared to Toronto. But building LRT will encourage higher density in some areas.
That's also why it's important to make this a regional system -- to reduce the traffic coming into the city, we need to hook up with St. Albert.
Let's say we stop LRT at NAIT and West Edmonton Mall and Century Place. That's just an internal system for people in the city to run on. It will take many years before it's a good financial model and you'll still have traffic pouring into the city (from the metro municipalities) and I'm trying to (keep the cars out).
- What's your vision for the LRT in 20 years?
Twenty years from now, I see a line right from Edmonton into St. Albert's downtown. I see the line in the south to the Mill Woods shopping centre, absolutely. To the west end, well, LRT should be past West Edmonton Mall and over the Anthony Henday Drive and into a large parking lot. I don't kno- about Sherwood Park to the east.
- Will there be a lot of battles with older neighbourhoods during the next fe- years as the routes get confirmed?
The potential is there for a lot of concern in certain neighbourhoods, but the shift is this: People can no- see the mistakes that were made 10 years ago by not building the line when it would have been much cheaper. The idea 'not in my backyard' doesn't work. There has to be progress that affects the entire city.
It's unfortunate we have to go through areas, but we want to consult with the neighbourhoods to find the best way."
People are also concerned about their land values. But in Toronto, it added $50,000 to $60,000 to the value of a condo to be on a transit line. People don't have that experience here yet.
- What are your immediate goals?
First, find the $800 million to get the NAIT line started in the next fe- months. With its relatively lo- debt load, the city could borro- that money.
Next, transit ridership is lo- and we have to start by getting ridership to increase at the same rate as population growth. And you do that with better service. I expect a very positive reaction from people when LRT opens in the south and we have to build on that momentum.
We also need to build hundreds more bus shelters.
Then we have to increase the cost recovery of the system from nearly 40 per cent to fifty per cent.
In a fe- years, transit operations will be big enough to be run by an independent commission, like in Toronto, rather than a city department.


Ho- will you balance the spending for roads with an expensive LRT system?
You need roads to move goods and services, and keep the traffic flowing through the city. That's why we need the (costly) 23rd Avenue interchange. But for commuting, you need transit. If you just keep building roads, people will use them and you never solve the congestion problem.
- Ho- will you entice independent-minded metro municipalities to work with Edmonton in a regional LRT system?
The ne- regionaI board will be the key. Also, with a regional LRT, municipalities can save money by reducing the need to widen roads.
Of course, the province has to get on board with some funding, and the federal government. We're looking at $2 billion to $2.5 billion for the NAIT line, the south extension and northwest within the city.
"We're not building the NAIT line just to get to NAIT, we're heading to St. Albert. We can't build it to the boundary and, when we get there, wait for funding for the rest. (The federal and provincial governments) have to realize it's not just an Edmonton system, it's the ribbon of steel that ties the region together."
- What was the hardest day you've ever had on the job?
August 13, 2003, the day Toronto lost its electricity in a blackout that stretched into the northeastern U.S. "I was on the subway in rush hour and suddenly it all stopped. I managed to get out, run up the 11 floors of the TTC building. The top bosses were on holidays, so I was one of the acting chief managers. We had to get thousands of people out of the trains and onto the buses and we ran the buses all night.
- Your most enjoyable day on the job?
July 23 to 28, 2002, the week of Pope John Paul II's visit to Toronto. Every day hundreds of thousands of people had to get to different locations and the TTC pulled out all the stops. The last day, 750,000 had to get to the mass site and home. It all went off without a hitch. It was wonderful.
- First impressions of Edmonton?
When I arrived in July, what surprised me right off the bat was the river valley, so wide and beautiful. My wife and I stayed downtown for a fe- months and joined the lawn bowling club at the legislature grounds. All the festivals over the summer, I don't kno- why I didn't kno- about all that. And the shopping is every bit as good as in Toronto.
- What do you do in your spare time?
My wife and I love gardening and we walk in the ravine near the house almost every day. We both collect model trains and the basement is full. My most prized possession is the original Harry Potter Hogwarts Express and last year I bought her the Polar Express train.

Not sure why the w are coming out as - but fill them in where needed...

[Kevin_foster]

So it looks like 87th ave is being looked at for WLRT.

News to me? Sorry I dont pay attention to this thread much :>

[Coldrsx]

^IMO 87ave is the best route WEST. Sure there are issues and a massive bridge to contend with, but how about a rail/car bridge? 2 lanes of car with a rail underneath.

regardless of that though, it has meadowlark for TOD, Mis, and WEM along with easy access west to lewis.

Done right it potentially could tie in the river valley zoo (yes grade is a massive obstable)

[Coldrsx]

Showdown ahead on LRT route
Mayor and transportation manager at loggerheads on west-end route
Susan Ruttan, edmontonjournal.com
Published: 3:08 pm
EDMONTON - The mayor and the city transportation manager appear set for a showdown over the route for an LRT line in the west end.

Bob Boutilier, the transportation manager, said today he favours a route along 87th Avenue, with the light-rail transit eventually crossing the river to connect with the south LRT line.

However, Mayor Stephen Mandel told reporters he strongly opposes that route.


Email to a friend

Printer friendly
Font:****"I don't support that at all - never have, never will," Mandel said of the 87th Avenue route. "I think it's a huge mistake. Council is spending money on LRT to move people, and you go down 87th Avenue and past 156th Street it's all single-family residential houses. To start knocking all those down to put high-rises up is a total waste of money. I won't support it... and neither will the neighbourhoods."

Mandel said he doesn't want to a have a huge fight with the neighbourhoods along 87th Avenue.

"I'm very disappointed that Mr. Boutilier can't see the trees for the forest."

Mandel's preference is to run the light-rail transit line along Stony Plain Road. "That's where you have great room for development."

There is currently no west LRT route set, and Boutilier emphasized that talks with the neighbourhood are still ongoing.

He told councillors it would still be possible to run the west-end line next to the Quesnell Bridge on Whitemud Drive, building a second or attached LRT bridge alongside the existing bridge. Council today approved proceeding with a $181-million rebuild of the Quesnell, using borrowed money if no other funds are found.

[email protected]




© Edmonton Journal 2008

[Coldrsx]

^87ave has huge setbacks and potential to not have to deal with house issues.

[newfangled]

^^^ don't even go mentioning a bridge for cars. There's no way folks in Laurier and Crestwood will be okay with turning 87ave into a "freeway."

And the zoo so does not need an LRT station.

But oh man, am I ever happy they've started debating WLRT!

[Coldrsx]

^why does the zoo not need an LRT? Long term my friend. Not right away, but how about potential provisions?

As per bridge, yes i know car anything likely wont happen, but it would be nice to have it as an option.

[feepa]

I'm now all for a 102 ave/SPR alignment.

From Churchill, come out on the same tunnel as the new Northline, but continue west along 105ave and switch up to 107 near 116/117st. Keep heading west till 149st. Use existing reserved land along 149 to SPR.

Next, Re-route all car/truck traffic to 100ave, turn SPR into a bus/LRT only transit way until either 156 or 163rd. Widen the sidewalk along SPR, and make SPR much more walkable/friendly area.

From 156 or 163 down to 87 ave, and then to West ED and further west.

This is the best option, covers the areas LRT needs to cover, solves the issue with having both SPR and 100 ave as excess roads in the west, and helps change a rotting area in SPR business district.

Do it.

[mick]

I've said it before but I think it's crazy that we don't look at going further west through Oliver, which is our densest neighbourhood (i.e. ready made TOD) and past the RAM and VFTC (another TOD op) before heading south to 87 ave and those other TOD opportunities. If we're considering a massive bridge span + tunnelling on either side, I see no reason not to consider cut and cover down jasper or 102nd to 124, which would probably be no more expensive, before running on the surface down 102. Furthermore, we'd probably avoid the inevitable court battles, given that 102 is already a major thoroughfare and transit route; just cut out a couple of lanes.

[newfangled]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

^why does the zoo not need an LRT? Long term my friend. Not right away, but how about potential provisions?

Any money that you're going to spend on a zoo LRT station - give the money directly to the zoo instead. Let them spend it on advertising, or on capital improvments to make themselves more relevant and less crappy.

Or give it to me instead! I guarantee that I'll find someway to increase attendance as much as the LRT!

[Coldrsx]

Originally Posted by mick

I've said it before but I think it's crazy that we don't look at going further west through Oliver, which is our densest neighbourhood (i.e. ready made TOD) and past the RAM and VFTC (another TOD op) before heading south to 87 ave and those other TOD opportunities. If we're considering a massive bridge span + tunnelling on either side, I see no reason not to consider cut and cover down jasper or 102nd to 124, which would probably be no more expensive, before running on the surface down 102. Furthermore, we'd probably avoid the inevitable court battles, given that 102 is already a major thoroughfare and transit route; just cut out a couple of lanes.

Ideally this is what i would like.

[newfangled]

Feeps, I'm totally with you except for:

Originally Posted by feepa

turn SPR into a bus/LRT only transit way until either 156 or 163rd. Widen the sidewalk along SPR, and make SPR much more walkable/friendly area.

Have you seen 7ave S in Calgary? It's like Thunderdome down there. If you turn SPR over to ETS then be prepared to get your Mad Max on.

100ave would actually be much better as a transit corridor.

[Mikemike]

The zoo could run a Safari-themed shuttle on holidays/weekends from the nearest station at 142 or 149, and that would be more than enough.

I wonder exactly what northerly route tha mayor likes. Saying stony plain road is all dandy, but do you connect it to NLRT's portal, forever limiting service to 6 minutes and taking the long way to the U, corona and even central, or a west from corona route, either down Jasper, or up 110 to 104 and eventually SPR or 107.

Either way, it has a big impact on the NLRT Line, as WLRT routes other than on jasper would provide a Grant Macewan Station and would allow NLRT stations to be better located for everyone else, at Epcor tower(101St) and at 107Ave&105 St.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by feepa

I'm now all for a 102 ave/SPR alignment.

From Churchill, come out on the same tunnel as the new Northline, but continue west along 105ave and switch up to 107 near 116/117st. Keep heading west till 149st. Use existing reserved land along 149 to SPR.

Next, Re-route all car/truck traffic to 100ave, turn SPR into a bus/LRT only transit way until either 156 or 163rd. Widen the sidewalk along SPR, and make SPR much more walkable/friendly area.

From 156 or 163 down to 87 ave, and then to West ED and further west.

This is the best option, covers the areas LRT needs to cover, solves the issue with having both SPR and 100 ave as excess roads in the west, and helps change a rotting area in SPR business district.

Do it.

Running the WLRT out of the north end of the downtown tunnel, instead of the south end, will reduce the ultimate utility of the system by severely constraining the headway on all the outlying routes. Unless you want all three routes heading out of the north to be stuck at 6 minutes headway forever, either a forced transfer at Churchill would be needed with different platforms for the WLRT and NLRT or a second downtown tunnel/above ground route.

[Mikemike]

Originally Posted by kyle_olsen

Running the WLRT out of the north end of the downtown tunnel, instead of the south end, will reduce the ultimate utility of the system by severely constraining the headway on all the outlying routes. Unless you want all three routes heading out of the north to be stuck at 6 minutes headway forever, either a forced transfer at Churchill would be needed with different platforms for the WLRT and NLRT or a second downtown tunnel/above ground route.

Absolutely. As far as I'm concerned, Using the N portal is a short term solution at best. The NE line is only a few year's growth before 4 car trains would be at uncomfortably packed at 6 minute headway, and if growth continues as it has 5 cars only buy another 4-5 years growth.

[mick]

Ideally this is what i would like.

I can't imagine this route was never considered. Anyone have any idea why it was apparently discarded?

[Kevin_foster]

I think the reason why 87th ave is being considered is simply because of it's low impact on having to displace people.