Edmonton Public Transit - Page 268

feepa · #**5341** Posted **Feb 15, 2012, 9:41 PM**

^ There's also 142/149 st I worry about, but a little less.

feepa · #**5342** Posted **Feb 15, 2012, 9:44 PM**

I would think that 69th avenue station on the Calgary WLRT would be a good substitute for 109st/104 ave

http://www.westlrt.ca/stationareas/69thstreetswstation.cfm

Coldrsx · #**5343** Posted **Feb 15, 2012, 9:54 PM**

The process works!

(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1426584/Revised%20LRT.jpg)

Mikemike · #**5344** Posted **Feb 16, 2012, 3:30 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rapid_business

Any idea when we should see Q3 2011 numbers for the LRT? Normally it is right around now.

95,315 estimated according to thetransforming edmonton blog. Bus had a higher %increase.

Shodan · #**5345** Posted **Feb 16, 2012, 1:51 PM**

Now for the reaction...

Call to reroute LRT line rejected
Move away from 102nd Avenue would delay deal: councillor

Gordon Kent
Edmonton

Thursday, February 16, 2012

Members of the Chinese and Boyle Street communities were disappointed Wednesday after council turned down their proposal to change the downtown LRT route.

Residents have been lobbying since last spring to keep the future low-floor line off 102nd Avenue between 95th and 96th streets, arguing seniors living nearby won't be able to cross the road safely to visit Chinese cultural centres...

[email protected]
© Edmonton Journal 2012

Copyright © 2012 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=f6a80cd5-49b8-4e79-a9fe-9f914195fd66&sponsor=

Coldrsx · #**5346** Posted **Feb 16, 2012, 4:38 PM**

Done and done. Let's move forward.

Shodan · #**5347** Posted **Feb 17, 2012, 1:44 PM**

Tax hike possible to 'fast-track' LRT
Public-private partnership for Mill Woods an option

Gordon Kent
Edmonton Journal

Friday, February 17, 2012

Funding a "fast-track" plan to start Mill Woods LRT construction by 2014 could involve a public-private partnership or a 5.4-per-cent tax hike, a new report says.

Councillors voted in November to push ahead with the LRT despite tight budgets, asking staff to find ways the city could provide $800 million toward the $1.8-billion line from 2014 to 2018...

[email protected]
© Edmonton Journal 2012

Copyright © 2012 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=2e4c9f0d-6e71-4ef4-8db4-a81d14814643&sponsor=

MalcolmTucker · #**5348** Posted **Feb 17, 2012, 4:38 PM**

Quote:

The issue will be discussed Tuesday by the transportation and infrastructure committee, which will also look at a proposed bylaw creating a committee of outside experts to oversee LRT design and construction.

The four to six members, each paid $16,000 annually - the chair receives an extra $5,000 - would do such tasks as selecting a contractor, allocating money, determining the procurement method and consulting the public. Council would still set the budget, routes, station locations, the exact track alignment, and the capacity of the system.

This is a very good idea. Will hopefully limit scope creep as long as council is willing to only have control over "budget, routes, station locations, the exact track alignment, and the capacity".

rapid_business · #**5349** Posted **Feb 17, 2012, 5:09 PM**

How about the 'operate' consideration for P3? That part has ruffled a lot of feathers here in Waterloo with the recent approval to head that way for the future LRT line. With the recent VIVA strike fresh on everyones mind too, it doesn't help. I know there was hesitancy last time it was talked about in Edmonton too in consideration to the MW line. What are the pros and cons of it, I'm not sure I have my feet planted firmly in either camps as of yet.

MalcolmTucker · #**5350** Posted **Feb 17, 2012, 5:48 PM**

Well, if the city is committed to operating low floor LRVs, there are only so much operational savings you can gain unless you are willing to limit frequency greatly. Now a P3 with operate in it might opt to buy super long LRVs so you can do one car per train instead of two, increasing capacity by removing the 2 extra cabs and couplers. It would trade flexibility for efficiency.

Strikes by transit workers shouldn't be more likely in private vs public systems. In private they should be even less likely - they aren't getting revenue from the city when they aren't operating (and in fact are likely paying a penalty).

Jasper and one o nin · #**5351** Posted **Feb 17, 2012, 6:19 PM**

So ... hypothetically speaking, I don't know anything about P3. But, as I think I understand, a private company builds it, pays for it, and operates it - and the levels of government pay for it over the next 30 years.
The entire project costs $3Billion. Edmonton has 404,800 dwellings. That works out to $247 per dwelling per year over 30 years (about $21/mo) - not taking into account new housing and interest (should cancel each other out). That doesn't include provincial or federal. So really, the impact to the average rate payer would be around $8-$20 month. I don't know, seems pretty reasonable to me. Seems like the bigger issue is getting commitment from the province and feds.

Mikemike · #**5352** Posted **Feb 17, 2012, 6:22 PM**

Including operations in a p3 would also cause complications if there are extensions beyond the original service length. It's not impossible, but it would have to be clearly spelled out. Imagine if SE an west were separate p3s built ten years apart. If west requires more service than millwoods, how do they work together?

MalcolmTucker · #**5353** Posted **Feb 17, 2012, 6:33 PM**

Well, the city extended the South LRT based on future contributions from the feds - I don't see how this would be seen as any different.

P3s can operate in many different ways, usually the government will put in as much cash as possible upfront to reduce overall costs if the project itself will not generate enough revenue to cover the cost.

Different type of p3s (not exhaustive)
Design-build-transfer
Design-build-operate-transfer
Design-build-finance-operate-transfer

There is a huge spectrum of what finance means as well. It can mean anything from cost smoothing during the construction phase, construction financing, amortizing the cost over a long period for government, or earning direct (tolls, rent, fares) or associated (real estate rights) revenues from the project to pay for it.

A good example of a successful P3 is the Confederation Bridge linking PEI to New Brunswick. A company paid 100% for it, in exchange for the right to charge tolls, and a transfer of the existing ferry subsidy to the bridge (not 100% sure on the last part).

In exchange, the government after a certain number of years has the bridge transfered to them for $1.

A pretty good deal if you ask me!

Unfortunately, we haven't land planned in a way that we can incent private companies to build infrastructure in the public interest. It takes a lot of foresight to do so.

MalcolmTucker · #**5354** Posted **Feb 17, 2012, 6:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikemike

Including operations in a p3 would also cause complications if there are extensions beyond the original service length. It's not impossible, but it would have to be clearly spelled out. Imagine if SE an west were separate p3s built ten years apart. If west requires more service than millwoods, how do they work together?

The last thing you said would be an issue for any system no matter how it was built.

Yeah, it would be harder to use the P3 components operate and maintain if you didn't issue the entire line in one P3 contract.

Doesn't mean you couldn't still do design-build-finance for the two parts of the line. Calgary for the West LRT did a design-build-partially finance (through real estate transfers) for an extension of an existing line.

rapid_business · #**5355** Posted **Feb 17, 2012, 8:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Well, if the city is committed to operating low floor LRVs, there are only so much operational savings you can gain unless you are willing to limit frequency greatly. Now a P3 with operate in it might opt to buy super long LRVs so you can do one car per train instead of two, increasing capacity by removing the 2 extra cabs and couplers. It would trade flexibility for efficiency.

Strikes by transit workers shouldn't be more likely in private vs public systems. In private they should be even less likely - they aren't getting revenue from the city when they aren't operating (and in fact are likely paying a penalty).

The biggest cost savings in operation, to my knowledge, is non-unionized employees driving the LRVs. Why the VIVA strike happened in the GTA was the private employees were fed up with being paid half what the unionized TTC workers were getting. The operator was getting a monthly subsidization from the city, regardless of striking or operating workers, so they had no incentive to break the strike or settle with the workers.