Edmonton Public Transit

[Shodan]

South LRT parking plan faces delay
City may put off Ellerslie Road park-and-ride site until 2011 so permanent facility can be built

Gordon Kent
The Edmonton Journal

Saturday, May 30, 2009

Parking for the new Century Park LRT station could be at a premium next year.

A temporary 1,400-stall gravel park-and-ride site at Ellerslie Road and 127th Street was scheduled to be available when the LRT reaches Century Park next April, with passengers taken to the station by shuttle buses.

But provincial land across the street from the Ellerslie Road property leased by the University of Alberta might become available earlier than expected, LRT expansion manager Joe Kabarchuk said Friday.

That would make it more practical to move directly to constructing a paved facility that's eventually going to be needed, although this means parking won't be ready until mid-2011, he said.

"The upside is we're not throwing away any investment. We're building something that will be there permanently," he said.

"This is definitely the right way to go." The idea received a boost last month when the provincial and federal governments announced they would pay two-thirds of the $23 million to $25 million cost as part of a stimulus package directed at LRT improvements.

The permanent lot will be needed, probably years from now, when an adjoining Ellerslie LRT station and transit centre are built.

Long-term plans for the area include possible post-secondary campuses and housing.

Farther south, the proposed 116-hectare Heritage Valley Town Centre is seen as a compact, transit- oriented mix of commercial and residential development tied in to LRT.

Opening the lot a year later than scheduled would save the city $2 million in operating costs, such as running the shuttle, maintaining the site, clearing snow and security, Kabarchuk said.

A report going to councillors in late June will recommend the new approach, although it needs council support before it can go ahead, he said.

"It's a better deal for Edmonton as a whole. We invest in infrastructure once. It will be in use for the entire life of the project." However, Coun. Bryan Anderson said a delay in completing the lot will affect commuters, particularly potential LRT riders driving in from Sherwood Park, Leduc County, Beaumont and other parts of the capital region.

"Those people who fight traffic every morning could use LRT with five-minute peak shuttle-bus service ... that's a disappointment to me," Anderson said.

Until the new lot is finished, he expects parking to be tight around Century Park, where a proposed $60-

million multi-level garage was put on hold in 2007 due to skyrocketing costs.

Although he still thinks that was the right decision, he expects neighbourhoods and shopping centres all along the south LRT will have complaints about motorists clogging their streets or parking illegally.

"It's a concern, but so are mosquitoes," he said.

"We will deal with the parasitic parking issue and do the best we can ... but the chances of eradicating it completely are almost nil."

He said he's working on another temporary parking solution that he can't yet discuss. Councillors will also take a second look at whether to charge fees at park-and-ride facilities during the 2010 budget debate.

[email protected]
© The Edmonton Journal 2009

Copyright © 2009 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.
CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.

http://www2.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=cc72e7d0-a4e6-4499-839b-770f4822d67e&sponsor=

[Shodan]

Transit preparing to make tracks
City has added 15 kilometres of light rail in the last 30 years; it could lay eight times as much track in the next 30

Gordon Kent
The Edmonton Journal

Sunday, May 31, 2009

After 30 years of slow growth, the LRT system is poised to undergo a dramatic expansion over the next few decades that could see tracks reach almost every corner of the city.

Under proposals set for a public hearing Tuesday, LRT cars would eventually travel to the southern boundary, Lewis Estates, St. Albert, the northeast Horse Hills area, Sherwood Park and Ellerslie, with an additional inner-city circuit tying downtown and Old Strathcona.

There might even be enough demand for a separate line to the northwest.

This ambitious program would involve a more than eight-fold increase in LRT track, to 128 kilometres from the existing 15 kilometres when Century Park opens in 2010.

While extensions to existing lines would use the current high-floor style of LRT trains, which passengers enter from raised platforms, planners suggest the new routes adopt low-floor technology accessible from simple curbside stops.

"In the long term, we're looking at bringing the city to a more urban centre ... (low-floor trains) can just fit in better to the community and the neighbourhood," transportation strategic planning general supervisor Rhonda Toohey says.

It's all part of the push to make Edmonton more compact, encouraging development along public transit corridors to help reduce sprawl that's bad for the environment and expensive to service.

But population concentrations will probably never be high enough to make LRT worthwhile in most of the capital region, including the Edmonton International Airport, with those areas better served by rapid bus or commuter rail.

Nothing will happen overnight. The only LRT extensions with routes in place are short hops to NAIT and Gorman -- the southeast and west approaches should be decided by the end of the year, while initial studies on a potential St. Albert alignment won't be finished until next spring.

The transportation master plan envisions the network being completed by 2041.

Long-range projections indicate that a century from now, the city core would see more than 120,000 daily riders, with fewer than 30,000 daily riders expected on outlying sections of the northwest, northeast, east, south and Old Strathcona lines.

Although the plan needs city council approval and plenty of money from other levels of government before it can be carried out, it's an important step in the LRT program, says Adam Laughlin, director of strategic transportation planning.

"It helps our specific corridor studies and provides them with the guidance needed on what the recommended route should be ... the technology helps in (deciding) the style of LRT system you want as well."

[email protected]

21st-century Streetcars

Planners foresee new stretches of the LRT network operating with low-key, low-floor vehicles that became popular in much of the world in the 1980s and resemble streetcars travelling along the road on a separate right-of-way.

Cheaper to build and maintain, stations can be built closer together in high-ridership areas. The trains integrate better with city surroundings and create less of a barrier to pedestrians.

They're part of a plan to move from our current suburban LRT system, featuring one to two kilometres between stations outside the city core, to an urban style in which the distance between stops is shorter to promote higher-density, transit-oriented development.

Infill stations might also be constructed on the existing system.

Low-Floor Trains

The new low-floor LRT trains wouldn't run on the existing lines or their extensions because they can't use the high-floor stations. Instead, they would follow a track separated from traffic, with priority signals so they wouldn't have to stop at intersections, similar to the current LRT.

Two frequently cited examples are in Portland, Ore., and Dublin, Ireland. Coun. Don Iveson says in a recent website posting (www.doniveson.ca) that after riding the Dublin system last year, "I can attest to the lovely sense of appropriate scale as it worms its way through the city, stopping frequently enough to have an impact, but without disrupting the underlying feel of the city."

What's Next?

- Tuesday: Public hearing at the transportation and public works committee about the LRT network plan, including the technology that should be used, connections to the region and where new lines should enter downtown. This will allow for decisions to be made about the overall network before further analysis of specific west and southeast routes.

- June: City collects public feedback on the west and southeast route suggestions.

- September: Open houses on the recommendations.

- November: Public hearing, followed by council decision on which lines to adopt in these two areas.

Budget Costs

While there aren't any precise cost figures for building the proposed LRT network, the rough estimate is $9 billion in 2009 dollars.

The budget for the three-kilometre extension to NAIT from downtown is $825 million, although that might drop as construction costs come down.

Initial calculations last fall indicated the price of a line to Mill Woods at $1 billion to $2 billion, while the expansion to Heritage Valley from the still-uncompleted Century Park station is pegged at $640 million.

There are no promises for money to expand the system from the other levels of government, aside from $140 million recently announced to go from Clareview to Gorman. It has taken more than 30 years to build Edmonton's first 15 kilometres of track.

Capacity Crunch

It might take decades, but the downtown LRT tunnel will eventually reach its capacity handling the trains on the current system, the planned northwest extension and either increased service or one additional line.

While further studies are needed, one possible solution is a separate surface line with low-floor trains travelling through downtown and Old Strathcona. It would stop at some existing stations so passengers could transfer to the underground system.

LRT Expansion

Potential routes to the northwest and east are still in the future, but planners have already come up with possibilities for west-end and southeast lines.

There are five options for Mill Woods from downtown -- crossing the High Level Bridge and following the CP Rail right-of-way south, or reaching Bonnie Doon Mall via Whyte Avenue or the Low Level, James Macdonald or Dawson bridges, then south on 83th Street or 75th Street.

The suggested choices for LRT to Lewis Estates include lines from South Campus station along Fox Drive, Whitemud Drive and 87th Avenue, or heading west to 87th Avenue from Health Sciences station over a new bridge through the river valley.

Two other proposals would use 102nd Avenue and Stony Plain Road, or 107th Avenue, going south to meet 87th Avenue along 156th Street or 163rd Street.
© The Edmonton Journal 2009

Copyright © 2009 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.
CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.

http://www2.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=654a439e-edc9-4440-94c1-7d45147c755c&sponsor=

[bulliver]

^ Great, bring it on...

[0773|=\]

Not sure I'm thrilled with the Low-floor LRV's being discussed along with this kind of system. I was hoping LRT would serve as a FAST connection between major points of activity. It seems with so many neighbourhood stops, this might just become a glorified streetcar that gets places marginally faster than buses.

I plan to attend some of the WLRT workshops, and I wish to emphasize that the system should operate FASTER than these ideas suggest.

Also, if the SLRT is not intended to link up with YEG, can we expect a higher-speed commuter rail soon? Could the CPR ROW be used for a DT-YEG rail connection once CPR relocates to the new inter-modal facility south of the city?

[ue]

Nice. Low floor would be great. to be technical, Portland doesn't have low floor LRT, it is a fullon streetcar. It would be a nice alternative to streetcar, and if we aren't getting streetcar, id gladly support it.

[Rogie]

I like the tack they want to take with the slower, low floor LRT. Transit documents now refer to helping the city become a more compact, walkable, and liveable place. Their conclusion is, to do that, you have to have a slower system that has more frequent stops to it.

Now, I can't imagine someone from St. Albert coming in on a slow LRT that stops every few hundred metres, but for anyone living, say, between the Yellowhead and Whitemud, I think a transit system should be slower and stop more frequently to allow more people to use it. Outside that zone, I agree, you need a faster system to compete with cars from the suburbs.

From my recollection riding it, Portland tries to do both, with infrequent stops in the 'burbs, and much more frequent once you get downtown. I don't frankly know if the suburbanites are happy with it, but the system seems to work.

As for transit to the airport, I'm all for it, but I'd prefer to see a bus. I think LRT is too slow to cover those distances effectively. Instead, I prefer to think of something like the airport rocket in Toronto whose sole job is to get people from the airport to the subway. I'd use a non-stop bus from Century Park to the airport every time I visit.

[Coldrsx]

low floor should be an inner city system (mature boundaries) with LRT serving the rest IMO outside of what we have.

[mooky]

I don't know about Edmonton, but Calgary has basically thrown in the towel on a plan to extend the LRT to the YYC terminal building. Instead a future link from YYC to a yet-to-be-built North-central LRT line will be accomplished probably by an automated people mover operated exclusively by the Calgary Airport Authority. At least that's the plans I currently hear being discussed for the future. Course, that might be kinda hard to accomplish in Edmonton perhaps with YEG being near Leduc.

Originally Posted by 0773|=\

Also, if the SLRT is not intended to link up with YEG, can we expect a higher-speed commuter rail soon? Could the CPR ROW be used for a DT-YEG rail connection once CPR relocates to the new inter-modal facility south of the city?

[Coldrsx]

register and play

http://www.commuterchallenge.ca

[lightrail]

Originally Posted by Rogie

I like the tack they want to take with the slower, low floor LRT. Transit documents now refer to helping the city become a more compact, walkable, and liveable place. Their conclusion is, to do that, you have to have a slower system that has more frequent stops to it.

Now, I can't imagine someone from St. Albert coming in on a slow LRT that stops every few hundred metres, but for anyone living, say, between the Yellowhead and Whitemud, I think a transit system should be slower and stop more frequently to allow more people to use it. Outside that zone, I agree, you need a faster system to compete with cars from the suburbs.

From my recollection riding it, Portland tries to do both, with infrequent stops in the 'burbs, and much more frequent once you get downtown. I don't frankly know if the suburbanites are happy with it, but the system seems to work.

As for transit to the airport, I'm all for it, but I'd prefer to see a bus. I think LRT is too slow to cover those distances effectively. Instead, I prefer to think of something like the airport rocket in Toronto whose sole job is to get people from the airport to the subway. I'd use a non-stop bus from Century Park to the airport every time I visit.

I'm not sure why people always look to Portland as an example of doing it right. The ridership is pretty low compared to Canadian Standards. If anything, point to Calgary - the Calgary system has the highest ridership of any LRT in North America. That's the way to do it. Which means, the current system of LRT is working - Edmonton just needs more if it.

Compact cities using low-floor trams is just a pipe-dream. Come on. Edmonton is built for the car. Putting trams running along the middle of the streets won't work in Edmonton. First, nobody will want to give up two lanes of traffic to trams (and it makes no sense to run the trams in traffic) on any road in Edmonton. Second, the city is already sprawling and low density.

Sure, if you can swing it - built trams in the built up area - a belt line from Whyte Avenue, Downtown and Oliver might get decent ridership if connected to a regional wide LRT system.

People are only interested in the fastest means to get form A to B. That is the car in Edmonton for most journey's. LRT needs to provide fast means between major centres - hopefully more reliable, faster and cheaper than the car.

If edmonton really believes in TOD - then get started on building TOD around the existing NELRT line. Stadium, Belvedere and Clareview all have ability to handle more density. There's lot's of waste ground near Belvedere. New stations could be built around 125th Avenue and at 95 Street, adding about 1 minute to the travel time, provided the new stations serve high density TOD.

[Daveography]

^ I agree with the first part of your post; the current type of LRT system that we are building will continue be successful as long as we keep building it.

On the other hand, I disagree with your sentiments about building a more compact city. It is exactly this "Edmonton is built for the car" attitude that must change. Yes, Edmonton is build for the car, but we cannot continue to build Edmonton for the car. It is simply unsustainable on too many levels.

Now, is low-floor, urban-oriented LRT the solution to that problem? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I have my own doubts about this. But it may very well be a step in the right direction.

One thing I know for sure, though, is that his defeatist "Edmonton will always be a car city" attitude has to change, and our transit systems have to change along with that.

[feepa]

Edmonton will always be a car city... until we find ways to service the industrial regions around the city w/ transit. If you can't take a bus or LRT to work, what do you want people to do? Walk 20km to the mod yard they work at? Or refinery, or warehouse?

[240glt]

I don't see why we can't be both a car city and a transit city.

I need my truck for work, no way around it. But I like the option to be able to take transit to the places I like to go for dinner/drinks/entertainment

[Coldrsx]

Originally Posted by 240glt

I don't see why we can't be both a car city and a transit city.

I need my truck for work, no way around it. But I like the option to be able to take transit to the places I like to go for dinner/drinks/entertainment

bingo

there still is a massive % of the population who could 'easily' take transit. Even if we had another 10% opt to walk, bike, or bus that would make us a better place.

[Daveography]

^ A++++++

While servicing most industrial areas may not be feasible (though not impossible for some of the smaller, more dense ones), there are still ridiculous numbers of vehicles that pour into downtown, the U of A, WEM, and other employment areas that should be able to take transit now, to say nothing of how many of them could if we continue to expand LRT and improve the bus network.

[lightrail]

Originally Posted by RTA

^ A++++++

While servicing most industrial areas may not be feasible (though not impossible for some of the smaller, more dense ones), there are still ridiculous numbers of vehicles that pour into downtown, the U of A, WEM, and other employment areas that should be able to take transit now, to say nothing of how many of them could if we continue to expand LRT and improve the bus network.

Land use patterns must change if we want a more compact city form - regardless of how we get around the city. The car culture has led to sprawl - just look on Google Maps at how much of Edmonton's suburbs are taken up by parking lots.

The industrial areas - sure, some businesses need the space, but a lot fo businesses in the industrial areas are office related and could be downtown, on a main street or a town centre. They're in the industrial area because rents are cheap.

Big Box Retail. They don't have to be in big parking lots like they are in Edmonton. There are excellent examples of big box retail in downtown Vancouver, with high rise residential above, parking underground (and greatly reduced) and the entrance is right at the sidewalk - no need to walk across a mile of parking lot. It will take the will of the City Council to make these changes, and it won't happen overnight.

[240glt]

^ I think you're a little out of touch with reality.

but a lot fo businesses in the industrial areas are office related and could be downtown, on a main street or a town centre

Unlikely. Most industrial operations have their admin offices close by because it makes sense financially, and it's good for the office staff to be close to the shop. In theory I could be in an office downtown, but it would be a whole lot more expensive and time consuming for my co. to house me there. We tried that experiment in Calgary... we set up a storefront on the +15 to service our downtown customers. It ended up being more trouble than it was worth.

Big Box Retail. They don't have to be in big parking lots like they are in Edmonton.

Here's a news flash: Big box stores are the same EVERYWHERE you go. Compare apples to apples please. Show me a difference between a future shop in SEC, vs. the Calgary burbs vs. Coquitlam or Surrey. There is none.

[Daveography]

Originally Posted by lightrail

Land use patterns must change if we want a more compact city form - regardless of how we get around the city. The car culture has led to sprawl - just look on Google Maps at how much of Edmonton's suburbs are taken up by parking lots.

The industrial areas - sure, some businesses need the space, but a lot fo businesses in the industrial areas are office related and could be downtown, on a main street or a town centre. They're in the industrial area because rents are cheap.

Big Box Retail. They don't have to be in big parking lots like they are in Edmonton. There are excellent examples of big box retail in downtown Vancouver, with high rise residential above, parking underground (and greatly reduced) and the entrance is right at the sidewalk - no need to walk across a mile of parking lot. It will take the will of the City Council to make these changes, and it won't happen overnight.

You'll get little disagreement from me on most of these points, but they aren't refuting what I called out in my last reply to you: This defeatist attitude that Edmonton is a car city and cannot change.

A more urban-focused LRT system is just one piece of that puzzle.

[ue]

Originally Posted by Rogie

(...)

From my recollection riding it, Portland tries to do both, with infrequent stops in the 'burbs, and much more frequent once you get downtown. I don't frankly know if the suburbanites are happy with it, but the system seems to work.
(...)

The people seem to like it there, but because of Portland's short blocks, sometimes it is quicker to walk aparently. And their rail that goes to the suburbs is pretty effective, the MAX, but it is a different system - although apart of TriMet.

Originally Posted by lightrail

I'm not sure why people always look to Portland as an example of doing it right. The ridership is pretty low compared to Canadian Standards. If anything, point to Calgary - the Calgary system has the highest ridership of any LRT in North America. That's the way to do it. Which means, the current system of LRT is working - Edmonton just needs more if it.

Compact cities using low-floor trams is just a pipe-dream. Come on. Edmonton is built for the car. Putting trams running along the middle of the streets won't work in Edmonton. First, nobody will want to give up two lanes of traffic to trams (and it makes no sense to run the trams in traffic) on any road in Edmonton. Second, the city is already sprawling and low density.

Portland sort of started the "streetcar fad", although I do think it is more than a fad. By American standards, the city is a marvel. Not to mention, the city has a huge biking culture, so many people just bike. And it's easy to walk the blocks so many do just walk to work. Transit would be third behind. That may help that it's numbers are lower. It is a city you don't need a car to get around in (same with Edmonton - but it is harder) and that is something marvel and something to look up to.

Calgarys system is successfull I won't doubt that, but I'd rather not have 7 Ave SW. I'd rather be innovative and have different types of systems. Calgary's ridership is high because it is one system going all over the place. I'm sure if we built an urban low floor our current LRT numbers would go down.

Regardless the mentality of us being a car culture is whilst true, something that needs to be changed as RTA said.

[Jasper and one o nin]

People will leave their cars at home when the infrastucture can't handle the demand, and traffic gets out of control. We're not there yet, and probably wont be for sometime. But the point is not, "build it and they will come" but build it to in order to have it in place so there will not be a problem in the future, provide another mode of transportation so there is a choice and to demonstrate that the City is proactive and serious about smart growth.
Edmonton is car dependant because there is really better alternative for most people. I tried taking the bus to work because I thought it was the right thing to do, but it takes three times longer than taking my car, and it costs more to buy a monthly pass vs. the gas I would use.